Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/lettersobservatiOOhick 


LETTERS  AND  OBSERVATIONS 


KELATING  TO  THE 


BESPECTIXG  THE 


DOCTRMES  OF  EL.IAS  HICKS. 


COXTAINTXG 


A  REVIEW 


LETTER  TO  DR.  N.  SHOEMAKER. 


THIRD  EDITION — REVISED- 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  READER. 
1824. 


Note. —  We  sincerely  regret  that  circumstances 
render  it  necessary  to  lay  the  following  pages  before 
our  readers,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  have 
not  been  the  first  to  resort  to  the  press.  Necessity 
has  compelled  us  into  the  measure.  The  publication  of 
Elias  Hicks1  letter  to  E.  A.  Atlee,  representing  the 
character  of  Anna  Braithwaite  in  an  unfavourable 
point  of  view,  and  the  circulation  which  has  been 
given  to  it,  render  it  an  act  of  justice  due  to  her,  thus 
plainly  to  exhibit  the  real  state  of  the  case. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


The  subsequent  letter  from  Anna  Braithwaite  to 
a  friend  at  Flushing,  Long  Island,  was  written,  with 
a  view  of  preserving  a  clear  and  correct  account,  of 
the  conversation  which  took  place  between  her  and 
Elias  Hicks,  on  the  two  occasions  mentioned ;  that 
it  might  be  produced  to  correct  any  misrepresenta- 
tions which  should  get  abroad,  after  she  had  quitted 
our  shores. 

During  the  whole  of  A.  B.'s  visit  to  America,  she 
evinced  a  watchful  care,  not  to  become  the  instru- 
ment of  circulating  or  exaggerating  reports,  which 
she  might  hear  relative  to  the  differences  of  opinion 
that  existed  among  some  individuals. 

Towards  Elias  Hicks  her  whole  conduct  was  cer- 
tainly that  of  a  friend  and  a  Christian.  Instead  of 
forming  her  opinion  of  his  doctrines,  from  the  repre- 
sentations of  others,  she  waited  upon  him,  and  in- 
quired for  herself ;  and  it  was  his  own  expressions, 
which  satisfied  her  of  the  pernicious  tendency  of  his 
principles.  She  had  heard  him  for  herself,  not  only 
in  private  but  in  his  public  preaching,  and  was  fully 
confirmed  in  the  belief,  that  he  denied  the  truth  of 
what  she  considered  to  be,  important  and  essential 
points  of  Christian  faith. 

What  then  became  her  duty  as  a  gospel  minister  ? 
To  cover  up  and  to  conceal  these  opinions  which  he 
had  avowed  to  her,  when  she  knew  that  he  was  con- 
stantly inculcating  the  same  opinions,  in  a  less  open 


4 


and  forbidding,  but  more  insinuating  and  dangerous 
form  ? 

Would  she  have  acted  the  part  of  a  faithful  minis- 
ter, if  she  had  not  warned  her  fellow-professors  of 
the  Christian  name,  against  the  adoption  of  these 
sentiments,  which  E.  H.  was  holding  up  to  them  as 
more  spiritual  and  consistent,  but  which  she  consci- 
entiously believed  to  be  imminently  dangerous  to  the 
peace  and  future  happiness  of  their  immortal  souls  ? 
No — she  would  have  been  guilty  of  betraying  her 
Master's  cause. 

Convinced  as  she  was,  most  sincerely,  that  his  doc- 
trines were  opposed  to  the  spread  of  vital  Christia- 
nity, it  was  her  duty  to  sound  the  alarm,  and  solemnly 
to  warn  her  hearers  against  the  adoption  of  them. 
And  she  did  it  faithfully. 

Elias  Hicks  charges  Anna  Braithwaite  with  "  tra- 
ducing his  religious  character  behind  his  back."  This 
is  certainly  a  mis-nomer;  for  she  opposed  his  prin- 
ciples in  his  presence,  where  he  had  every  opportu- 
nity to  deny  that  he  held  such  principles,  had  this 
been  the  fact.  Now,  if  E.  H.  calls  this  traducing 
his  religious  character,  it  would  seem  that  he  himself 
considers  his  doctrines  of  such  a  nature,  that,  if  the 
Christian  world  knew  that  he  held  them,  it  would 
lower  his  character  as  a  religious  man. 

Anna  Braithwaite  did  no  more  than  unfold,  in  their 
true  light,  and  confute  by  scripture  and  sound  argu- 
ment, the  sentiments  which  he  had  avowed  to  her; 
and,  for  the  injury  which  his  religious  character  has 
sustained,  his  principles  are  in  fault — not  her  refuta  - 
tion of  them. 

Whatever  motives  may  be  attributed  to  A.  B.  by 
those  who  shrink  from  a  full  and  free  investigation 


5 


into  the  opinions  of  E.  H.,  it  is  certain,  that  she  act- 
ed openly  and  without  disguise.  In  a  select  assembly 
of  some  hundred  persons,  of  whom  E.  H.  was  one- 
she  alluded  to  the  interviews  noticed  in  her  letter,  and 
detailed  the  principal  assertions  of  E.  H.  as  she  has 
put  them  down  on  paper ;  and  he  had  full  liberty  to 
deny,  if  he  thought  proper ;  which,  however,  he  did 
not. 

During  her  stay  in  New  York  for  several  weeks 
previous  to  her  embarkation,  E.  H.  had  every  oppor- 
tunity, if  he  had  chosen,  to  come  forward  and  to  dis- 
claim what  he  knew  she  had  asserted,  in  his  pre- 
sence, to  be  his  doctrine;  and  further,  she  evinced  a 
desire  to  meet  him,  and  caused  a  message  to  this 
effect  to  be  delivered  to  him ;  but  he  neither  came 
forward  to  meet  her,  nor  publicly  denied  the  correct- 
ness of  her  assertions,  until  after  she  had  left  Ame- 
rica, to  return  to  her  family  and  friends. 


LETTERS,  &c. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  Anna  Braithwaite,  to  a  friend 
at  Flushing,  on  Long  Island. 

The  first  conversation  had  with  E.  H.  by  A.  R., 
was  after  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Ministers  and 
Elders — Dined  at  his  house.  After  expressing  his 
great  unity  with  her,  he  seemed  to  think  she  wanted 
nothing  but  further  experience  to  enlarge  her  views, 
and  make  them  more  correct. 

He  spoke  on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures  as  being 
much  too  highly  thought  of  among  Friends,  eluci- 
dating his  views  by  saying,  that  a  master  was  useful 
in  teaching  the  rules  of  arithmetic,  but  when  we  had 
learned  them,  he  was  no  longer  needful  to  us ;  there- 
fore, when  we  come  to  the  Spirit,  to  which  the  Scrip- 
tures direct,  we  had  no  longer  need  of  them.  Indeed, 
he  thought  that  since  the  Comforter,  or  Spirit  of 
Truth,  had  come  into  every  heart,  we  should  be  bet- 
ter without  them ;  and  that  children  brought  up  to 
pay  attention  to  the  Spirit,  would  have  all  revealed 
to  them  which  the  Scriptures  contain,  that  was  need- 
ful for  them,  without  the  perusal  of  them.  Even  with 
regard  to  the  creation  of  the  world,  it  would  be  better 
left  to  the  revelation  of  the  Word,  than  to  any  out- 
ward means  of  information :  and  he  strongly  recom- 
mended her  disuse  of  the  Scriptures,  stating,  that  he 
only  referred  to  them  in  his  communications  on  ac- 
count of  the  low  state  of  the  times,  the  people  being 


7 


still  attached  to  the  letter.  But  his  opinion  was,  that 
both  A.  B.  and  himself  would  preach  the  gospel  better 
without  reference  to  the  Scriptures  in  any  way,  as  he 
believed  the  Bible  had  done  more  harm  than  any 
other  book  ever  published ;  and  that,  if  we  supposed 
it  a  great  advantage  to  have  the  Bible,  we  must  sup- 
pose the  Almighty  very  unjust  to  leave  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  human  species  without  it.  [The  fore- 
going is  the  substance  of  the  first  conversation,  omit- 
ting strong  expressions  of  E.  H.  of  disapprobation  of 
Bible  societies,  not  thought  needful  to  note.] 

When  at  Jericho,  in  the  third  month,  A.  B.  took 
tea  with  E.  H.  in  a  social  way.  She  had  not  long 
been  in  the  house,  when  he  began  to  speak  on  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity,  which  A.  B.  considers  a  word 
so  grossly  abused,  as  to  render  it  undesirable  ever  to 
make  use  of  it.  E.  H.  spoke  much  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  believing  what  we  could  not  comprehend ; 
and  also  on  the  propriety  of  bringing  even  Scripture 
truths  to  the  test  of  the  Spirit  in  our  own  hearts,  and 
rejecting  all  such  parts  as  we  do  not  see  to  be  con- 
sistent with  the  attributes  of  the  Almighty ;  stating, 
that  from  reading  various  works  he  was  convinced 
not  only  that  our  English  translation  of  the  Bible  was 
in  many  parts  erroneous,  but  also  that  the  gospels 
handed  to  us  were  no  more  authentic  than  many 
other  writings  that  we  have  not  received ;  and  that 
they  have  been  greatly  contaminated  by  coming 
through  the  medium  of  popes,  who  were  anxious  to 
favour  their  own  views.  Indeed,  he  said  it  was  not 
needful  for  us  to  believe  more  than  a  small  part  of 
what  was  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he 
conceived  the  writings  of  Confucius,  and  many  others 
of  the  philosophers,  were  equally  of  divine  revelation 


8 


with  the  Scriptures.  That  the  heathen  nations,  the 
Mahometans,  Chinese,  Indians,  &c.  bore  greater  evi- 
dence of  the  influence  of  divine  light  than  professing 
Christians.  E.  H.  also  asked  A.  B.  if  she  could  be 
so  ignorant  as  to  believe  in  the  account  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  as  given  in  the  Scriptures  :  that  he 
had  been  convinced  for  the  last  ten  years,  that  it  was 
nothing  but  an  allegory  :  that  this  had  been  specially 
revealed  to  his  mind  in  a  meeting  in  Liberty  street, 
about  that  time.  He  asked  A.  B.  if  she  thought  Adam 
^was  any  worse  after  he  had  eaten  the  forbidden  fruit 
than  before,  saying  he  did  not  believe  he  was.  He 
also  asked  her  if  she  conceived  we  were  born  into  the 
world  in  any  different  condition  from  Adam  when  he 
was  first  created;  stating,  that  to  suppose  we  had 
any  propensities  to  evil,  was  to  suppose  the  Almighty 
created  evil,  and  that  he  believed  all  our  propensities 
were  good :  it  was  the  excessive  indulgence  of  them 
that  made  them  evil.  He  spoke  much  of  the  absur- 
dity of  believing  in  any  outward  sacrifice  for  sin : 
that  it  was  the  same  Spirit  that  was  in  us  that  was 
in  Christ,  which  was  the  alone  means  of  redemption 
and  salvation :  that  he  believed  it  to  be  from  the  Spirit 
that  he  was  convinced  that  Jesus  Christ  was  no  more 
than  a  prophet,  who  was  faithful  to  the  gift  that  was 
in  him,  and  which  was  conferred  at  the  time  the  Spirit 
descended  upon  him  like  a  dove,  when  he  was  under- 
going the  ceremony  of  outward  baptism. 

E.  H.  said  if  A.  B.  would  attentively  read  the 
Scriptures,  she  would  believe  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of 
Joseph,  and  quoted  many  texts  to  convince  her  of  it. 
He  asked  her  whether  she  could  suppose  the  Almighty 
to  be  so  cruel  as  to  suffer  Jesus  Christ  to  die  for  our 
sakes.    He  appealed  to  her  as  a  mother,  stating  how 


9 


cruel  it  would  be  for  her  to  suffer  one  of  her  children 
to  die  for  the  dearest  friend  she  had  in  the  world : 
that  Jesus  died  in  support  of  his  testimony  as  any 
other  martyr  had  died,  and  that  his  death  was  no 
more  to  us  than  the  death  of  any  other  martyr :  that 
he  died  through  the  persecution  of  the  Jews,  not  wil- 
lingly, but  because  he  could  not  help  it.  On  being 
told  it  was  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  that  was  in 
Christ,  and  a  measure  of  the  Spirit  that  w  as  in  us, 
E.  H.  asserted  that  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  in 
us,  and  in  every  blade  of  grass ;  and  he  often  ex- 
pressed his  belief  that  if  we  attended  to  the  Spirit, 
every  thing  relating  to  the  dealings  of  the  Almighty 
would  be  revealed  to  us  individually,  so  that  we  could 
comprehend  every  thing  ourselves.  That  he  thought 
there  was  no  other  test  for  our  society  to  be  governed 
by,  but  the  test  of  the  Spirit,  without  any  reference 
to  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. On  being  asked  how  it  should  be  that  the 
Spirit  should  in  his  mind,  directly  oppose  the  leading 
doctrines  of  our  society,  founded  upon  Christian  tes- 
timony, and  upon  the  revelation  of  the  Lord's  power 
in  the  hearts  of  our  early  Friends,  and  how  it  could 
be  that  in  A.  B.'s  mind  its  openings  had  been  in  uni- 
form accordance  with  these,  and  who  must  decide 
between  them  ?  he  said  he  did  not  know,  but  he 
should  like  to  live  to  see  the  day  when  our  discipline 
should  be  extended  to  nothing  further  than  immoral 
conduct :  that  he  thought  matters  of  faith  should 
never  come  under  its  cognizance ;  and  he  hoped 
Friends  would  let  him  alone  as  long  as  he  lived. 

On  being  asked  what  would  become  of  the  society 
if  one  minister  stated  one  thing,  and  another  some- 
thing directly  opposite,  all  asserting  divine  inspira- 

B 


10 


tion,  he  said  he  should  like  to  see  it  tried.  On  the 
very  subject  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  our  Saviour, 
Ann  Shipley,  who  was  with  me,  and  who  will  bear 
witness  to  all  the  above  statements,  mentioned  to  me 
that,  some  years  ago,  in  a  religious  meeting,  she 
heard  E.  H.  most  beautifully  allude  to  his  full  belief 
in  our  Saviour's  being  the  Son  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  he  entered  into  some  instructive  illustrations  on 
the  subject* 

Can  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  be  opposed  to  itself  in 
its  operations  on  the  mind  ? 

ANNA  BRAITHWAITE, 
New  York,  1th  mo.  16th,  1824. 


The  following  is  the  substance  of  Anna  Braith- 
ivaite's  remarks  in  reply  to  the  assertions  of  Elias 
Hicks. 

In  regard  to  believing  what  we  cannot  compre- 
hend, A.  B.  asked  him,  if  he  could  comprehend  how 
the  grass  grew :  that,  perhaps,  he  could  define  it  to 
a  certain  extent,  and  had  the  evidence  of  the  process 
to  his  outward  senses,  so  as  to  remove  all  doubts  of 
the  fact  that  the  grass  does  grow;  but  beyond  that. 
there  was  a  creative  power,  a  mystery  that  human 
wisdom  could  not  fathom ;  and  if  this  was  the  case 
with  regard  to  the  works  of  the  outward  creation,  how 
much  more  must  it  be  the  case  with  regard  to  things 
of  a  spiritual  nature  ?  that  it  was  transgressing  our 
bounds  as  finite  created  beings,  to  judge  of  the  ways 
of  Omnipotence  ;  that  his  ways  were  higher  than  our 
ways,  and  his  thoughts  than  our  thoughts ;  that  it 


11 

was  not  for  us  to  say  what  was  consistent  with 
attributes,  and  what  was  not  consistent  with  them, 
but  to  bow  to  his  holy  will  in  what  he  is  pleased  to 
do  in  and  for  us ;  that,  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
Scriptures,  if  we  take  them  upon  the  ground  of  evi- 
dence, and  lose  sight  of  the  wish  to  comprehend  the 
why  and  the  wherefore  of  the  Lord's  dealings,  further 
than  as  they  may  be  unfolded  to  us,  we  shall  find  a 
greater  mass  of  external  evidence  of  their  authenti- 
city, than  of  any  other  book  that  was  ever  wrritten  in 
the  world.  She  recommended  to  Elias  Hicks,  that 
as  he  had  read  works  stating  objections  to  the  Eng- 
lish translations,  and  insinuating  that  pernicious  effects 
had  been  produced  by  the  channels  through  which 
our  gospels  had  come  to  us,  to  peruse  some  of  the 
various  authors  who  have  so  ably  replied  to  all  these 
objections.  That  the  Scriptures  containing  the  his- 
tory of  our  first  parents,  their  disobedience,  their  fall 
in  consequence  of  it,  the  account  of  the  Lord's  deal- 
ings with  his  people  Israel,  of  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation, of  the  types  and  figures  pointing  in  so  conspi- 
cuous a  manner  to  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  to 
the  glorious  offering  for  sin  upon  Calvary's  Mount : 
containing,  also,  the  prophecies  and  experience  of  the 
dedicated  servants  of  the  Most  High ;  followed  by 
the  New  Testament,  where  these  prophecies  are  so 
memorably  fulfilled,  as  relates  to  the  fulness  of  times, 
when  the  promised  Saviour,  the  Redeemer,  the  Word 
which  was  from  the  beginning,  came  among  men  in 
that  prepared  body  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
taking  upon  himself  the  form  of  a  servant,  was,  in  all 
respects,  tempted  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin  ;  con- 
taining, also,  most  ample  testimony  to  the  divinity  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :  bears  such  evi- 


12 


dent  marks  of  divine  inspiration,  as  to  leave  no  doubt 
of  its  having  been  under  divine  appointment,  that  the 
revelation  of  the  will  of  Almighty  God,  as  contained 
in  them,  should  be  profitable  for  doctrine,  &c.  Then, 
as  regards  the  internal  evidence,  he  that  believeth 
hath  the  witness  in  himself ;  and  that  the  state  of  the 
true  believer  is  one  of  progressive  growth ;  yet  when 
the  language  can  only  be  in  sincerity  of  soul  uttered, 
"  help  thou  mine  unbelief,"  such  an  one  will  ever  be 
preserved  from  denying  what  he  may  not  yet  be  ini- 
tiated into  a  belief  of ;  and  as  he  advances  he  will 
find  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  him,  will  ever  ac- 
knowledge to  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in 
the  sacred  writings ;  and  that  it  is  well  for  us  to 
remember,  that  in  Christ  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,  and  that  in  us  it  is  a  measure  of  the 
same  Spirit :  that  to  say  his  divinity  consists  only  in 
the  gift  that  was  in  him  and  in  his  faithfulness  to  it, 
is  to  make  him  on  a  level  with  ourselves.  With  re- 
gard to  his  death  for  our  sakes,  what  can  be  said  that 
is  not  said  in  the  Scriptures,  both  before  and  after 
this  wonderful  display  of  mercy  to  the  children  of 
men,  to  prove  that  it  was  a  free-will  offering  for  the 
sins  of  the  world  ? 

In  reference  to  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  being  an  allegory,  A.  B.  stated  her  opinion 
that  although  the  spiritual  application  of  Scripture 
facts  might  sometimes  be  instructive,  yet  she  con- 
ceived it  dangerous  in  any  degree  to  undermine  a  be- 
lief in  the  plain  historical  narration  of  facts  as  having 
really  taken  place. 

.  With  regard  to  Adam,  she  fully  believed  him  to 
be  in  a  very  different  condition,  after  he  had  trans- 
gressed the  command  of  the  Almighty,  from  what  he 


13 


was  in  before  :  that  the  writings  of  our  early  friends, 
R.  Barclay,  &c.  clearly  bear  their  testimony  to  the 
fall  of  Adam  from  the  state  in  which  he  was  first 
created :  that  A.  B.'s  views  on  the  subject  entirely 
corresponded  with  R.  B.'s  statement  of  it.  She  told 
E.  H.  he  must  be  aware  that  there  was  a  great  deal 
of  evil  in  the  world,  and  that  if  we  had  not  propen- 
sities to  evil,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  a  prepon- 
derance of  good  would  appear.  That  A.  B.  from  her 
own  experience,  and  from  every  observation  she  had 
been  enabled  to  make  on  the  human  mind,  was  fully 
convinced  that  we  have  evil  propensities ;  and  that  it 
is  only  through  obedience  to  the  glorious  means  of 
restoration,  through  the  coming  of  our  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,  that  we  know  an  overcoming  of 
evil. 

With  regard  to  all  being  revealed  to  us,  without 
the  Scripture,  A.  B.  stated  her  very  decided  opinion, 
that  it  was  presumptuous  to  cherish  such  an  idea. 
Through  unutterable  mercy,  the  grace  of  God  has 
appeared  unto  all  men;  yet  facts  daily  prove  to  us, 
that  even  the  most  watchful,  find  that  it  is  for  them 
to  accept,  with  humble  thankfulness,  the  intimations 
afforded,  and  that  immediate  revelation  is  not  at  their 
command.  That  as  the  Scriptures  do  so  amply  contain 
the  above  mentioned  chain  of  sublime  truths,  should 
we  neglect  the  means  put  within  our  reach,  of  in- 
struction from  them,  we  must  indeed  be  blind  to  our 
condition  to  expect,  that  this  sublime  chain  of  events, 
would  be  revealed  to  us  during  such  neglect.  With 
regard  to  those  nations  who  have  not  the  Scriptures, 
we  fully  believe,  that  as  Christ  died  for  all  men,  so 
the  grace  and  truth  which  came  by  him,  doth  appear 
unto  all  men — yet  we  see,  and  do  hear  facts  continu- 


14 


ally,  proving  that  where  the  Scriptures  are  unknown, 
evident  proofs  of  darkness  do  exist;  and  that  it  is  the 
want  of  authentic  information  on  the  subject,  which 
can  make  any  ene  suppose  that  the  Chinese,  Indians, 
&x.  evince  stronger  marks  of  gospel  light  in  their 
conduct,  than  professing  Christians;  and  if  we  take 
what  is  called  the  Christian  world,  we  shall  uniformly 
find,  that  superstition  on  the  one  hand,  and  infidelity 
on  the  other,  have  opposed  the  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  that  under  the  Divine  blessing,  the  perusal 
of  them  has  seemed  conspicuously  to  have  enlighten- 
ed the  minds  of  all  those,  who  have  been  instrumental 
to  religious  reform.  She  stated  also,  that  she  thought 
we  could  not  do  better,  than  leave  all  those  nations 
whose  disadvantages  were  no  doubt  weighed  in  the 
balance  of  the  sanctuary,  to  the  attribute  of  Divine 
mercy,  remembering  the  parable,  that  he  who  knew 
not  the  Lord's  will,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes, 
was  to  be  beaten  with  few  stripes — but  what  would 
become  of  us,  if  in  trying  to  bring  ourselves  upon  a 
level  with  them,  we  should  prove  to  be  of  those  who 
might  have  known  the  Lord's  will,  and  may  deserve 
to  be  beaten  with  many  stripes? 

A.  B.  stated  the  confusion  that  would  ensue  in  any 
religious  society,  if  the  ministers  of  that  society  were 
not  cognizable  to  it  for  the  doctrines  they  might 
preach.  That  as  she  fully  believed  the  Scriptures  to 
be  given  forth  by  the  Spirit,  and  to  direct  to  it,  so  she 
considered  the  Spirit  might  be  said  to  be  the  cause, 
and  the  Scriptures  the  effect.  That  as  they  are  the 
effect,  if  we  really  witness  the  operation  of  the  same 
Spirit  in  our  own  hearts,  there  will  be  a  correspon- 
dence, like  face  answering  to  face  in  a  glass,  and  we 
shall  never  be  afraid  of  trying  the  cause  by  the  effect 


15 


produced.  That  our  fundamental  doctrine  of  a  belief 
in  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  should  never 
screen  us  from  the  necessity  of  trying  the  spirits;  and 
that  it  is  not  possible  that  it  can  be  the  same  Spirit 
which  in  one  individual  gives  living  faith  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel,  and  in  another  contradicts  them. 

That  our  early  Friends,  gathered  out  of  the  forms 
and  ceremonies  of  religion,  by  the  power  of  Truth 
operating  upon  their  hearts  and  understandings,  were 
brought  into  the  obedience  of  Christ — they  knew  his 
voice  within  them,  and  they  acknowledged,  under  its 
influence,  to  all  he  had  done  for  them.  Their  wri- 
tings bear  ample  testimony  to  this.  A  society  founded 
upon  such  principles,  so  long  as  its  ministers  are  bap- 
tized by  the  One  Spirit,  into  the  Body  of  which  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Holy  Head  and  High  Priest,  will  be 
likely  to  be  bound  together  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
gospel — but  when  under  the  profession  of  the  gui- 
dance of  the  Spirit,  such  sacred  truths  as  the  mira- 
culous birth  and  death  of  our  Saviour,  for  our  sakes. 
are  denied ;  then  such  a  depatture  from  the  sound- 
ness of  the  Faith,  would  be  watched  over,  as  a  fond 
parent  would  watch  over  a  diseased  limb  in  a  child : 
and  lest  the  wound  should  spread,  and  the  vital  func- 
tions should  become  injured,  true  affection  would  lead 
the  parent  to  consent  to  the  amputation  of  the  limb, 
that  the  life  of  the  child  might  be  spared ;  so  would 
gospel  love  lead  the  living  members  of  the  church, 
after  using  every  means  in  their  power  to  restore 
such  a  minister,  to  remove  him  from  the  body  of  the 
Society,  lest  it  also  should  become  diseased. 

That  no  society  could  exist,  so  as  to  know  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  if  its  minis- 
tors  did  not  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and  drink 


16 


the  same  spiritual  drink,  having  faith  in  God,  and 
in  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  hath  sent,  proving  their 
faith  by  their  works ;  and  the  work  of  the  ministry 
is  one  of  the  most  important  tests  by  which  living 
faith  can  be  proved.  A.  B.  stated  in  the  course  of 
her  communications,  that  she  knew  herself  to  be  but 
a  child  in  experience,  yet  in  that  love  which  casts  out 
fear,  she  believed  it  her  duty  to  speak  the  truth  in 
boldness  to  one  whom  she  desired  to  entreat  as  a  fa- 
ther. E.  H.  repeatedly  told  her,  that  it  was  want  of 
experience  which  prevented  her  views  being  similar 
to  his — that  he  thought  light  was  progressing,  and 
that  we  need  not  recur  either  to  our  early  Friends,  or 
to  the  Scriptures,  in  these  days.  A.  B.  thought,  that 
whenever  any  newer  gospel  should  be  preached  than 
that  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  she 
believed  would  never  be  the  case,  such  corroborating 
testimonies  would  be  afforded,  as  conspicuously  at- 
tended the  ushering  in  of  the  new  covenant  dispensa- 
tion. She  asked  E.  H.  what  greater  enlargement  he 
could  desire,  than  attended  the  apostle  Paul  after  his 
memorable  conversion  ;  when  all  his  faculties,  under 
the  sanctifying  power  of  Divine  Grace,  were  so  emi- 
nently enlarged  and  directed  to  the  allotted  field  of 
labour,  he  was  introduced  into.  A.  B. 

The  foregoing  comprehends  the  views  held  out  by 
A.  B.  though  they  may  not  be  the  exact  words,  nor 
nearly  the  whole  of  what  she  had  to  say  to  E.  H. 

The  first  conversation  occurred  at  E.  H.'s  1st  mo. 
21st,  1824;  the  second  in  the  3d  month  following. 
Ann  Shipley  was  her  companion,  and  was  present  at 
each  time. 


17 


Copy  of  a  letter  from  Elias  Hicks  to  Dr.  Edwin  A. 
Atlee,  of  Philadelphia,  relative  to  the  foregoing  do- 
cuments. 

Jericho,  9th  mo.  27th,  1824. 

MY  DEAR  FRIEND, 

Thy  very  acceptable  letter  of  the  29th  ultimo  came 
duly  to  hand,  and  I  have  taken  my  pen  not  only  to 
acknowledge  thy  kindness,  but  also  to  state  to  thee 
the  unfriendly  and  unchristian  conduct  of  A.  Braith- 
waite  towards  me,  not  only  as  relates  to  that  extract, 
but  in  her  conversation  among  Friends  and  others, 
traducing  my  religious  character,  and  saying  I  held 
and  promulgated  infidel  doctrines,  &c. — endeavouring 
to  prejudice  the  minds  of  Friends  against  me,  behind 
my  back,  in  open  violation  of  gospel  order.  She 
came  to  my  house,  as  stated  in  the  extract  thou  sent 
me,  after  the  quarterly  meeting  of  ministers  and  elders 
at  Westbury  in  first  month  last.  At  that  meeting 
was  the  first  time  I  saw  her,  which  was  about  five 
or  six  months  after  her  arrival  in  New  York.  And 
as  I  had  heard  her  well  spoken  of  as  a  minister,  I 
could  have  had  no  preconceived  opinion  of  her  but 
WThat  was  favourable,  therefore,  I  treated  her  with  all 
the  cordiality  and  friendship  I  was  capable  of.  She 
also,  from  all  outward  appearance,  manifested  the 
same ;  and  after  dinner,  she  requested,  in  company 
with  A.  S.,  a  female  Friend  that  was  with  her,  a  pri- 
vate opportunity  with  me.  So  we  withdrew  into  an- 
other room,  where  we  continued  in  conversation  for 
near  two  hours.  And  being  innocent  and  ignorant 
of  any  cause  that  I  had  given,  on  my  part,  for  the 
necessity  of  such  an  opportunity,  I  concluded  she 

c 


18 


had  nothing  more  in  view  than  to  have  a  little  free 
conversation  on  the  state  of  those  select  meetings. 

But,  to  my  surprise,  the  first  subject  she  spoke 
upon,  was  to  call  in  question  a  sentiment  I  had  ex- 
pressed in  the  meeting  aforesaid,  which  appeared  to 
me  to  be  so  plain  and  simple,  that  I  concluded  the 
weakest  member  in  our  society,  endued  with  a  ra- 
tional understanding,  would  have  seen  the  propriety 
of.  It  was  a  remark  I  made  on  the  absence  of  three 
out  of  four  of  the  representatives  appointed  by  one  of 
the  preparative  meetings  to  attend  the  quarterly  meet- 
ing. And  I  having  long  been  of  the  opinion,  that 
much  weakness  had  been  introduced  into  our  society 
by  injudicious  appointments,  I  have  often  been  con- 
cerned to  caution  Friends  on  that  account.  The  re- 
mark I  made  was  this:  that  I  thought  there  was 
something  wrong  in  the  present  instance — for,  as  we 
profess  to  believe  in  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of 
Truth  as  an  unerring  Spirit,  was  it  not  reasonable  to 
expect,  especially  in  a  meeting  of  ministers  and  el- 
ders, that  if  each  friend  attended  to  their  proper  gift, 
as  this  Spirit  is  endued  with  prescience,  that  it  would 
be  much  more  likely,  under  its  divine  influence,  we 
should  be  led  to  appoint  such  as  would  attend  on  a 
particular  and  necessary  occasion,  than  to  appoint 
those  who  would  not  attend  ? 

This  idea,  she  contended,  was  not  correct;  and 
the  sentiments  she  expressed  on  this  subject  really 
affected  me.  To  think  that  any,  professing  to  be  a 
gospel  minister,  called  from  a  distant  land  to  teach 
others,  and  to  be  so  deficient  in  knowledge  and  ex- 
perience, in  so  plain  a  case,  that  I  could  not  well 
help  saying  to  her,  that  her  views  were  the  result  of 
a  want  of  religious  experience,  and  that  I  believed  if 


19 


she  improved  her  talent  faithfully,  she  would  be 
brought  to  see  better,  and  acknowledge  the  correct- 
ness of  my  position.  But  she  replied,  she  did  not 
want  to  see  better.  This  manifestation  of  her  self- 
importance,  lowered  her  character,  as  a  gospel  minis- 
ter, very  much  in  my  view ;  and  her  subsequent  con- 
duct, while  she  was  with  us,  abundantly  corroborated 
and  confirmed  this  view  concerning  her.  As  to  her 
charge  against  me,  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures,  it  is 
generally  incorrect,  and  some  of  it  false.  And  it  is 
very  extraordinary,  that  she  should  manifest  so  much 
seeming  friendship  for  me,  when  present,  and  in  my 
absence,  speak  against  me  in  such  an  unbecoming 
manner.  Indeed,  her  conduct  towards  me,  often  re- 
minds me  of  the  treachery  of  Judas,  when  he  betray- 
ed his  master  with  a  kiss.  And,  instead  of  acting  to- 
wards me  as  a  friend  or  a  Christian,  she  had  been 
watching  for  evil. 

As  to  my  asserting  that  I  believed  the  Scriptures 
were  held  in  too  high  estimation  by  the  professors  of 
Christianity  in  general,  I  readily  admit,  as  I  have  as- 
serted it  in  my  public  communications  for  more  than 
forty  years,  but,  generally,  in  opposition  to  those  that 
held  them  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice ; 
and  my  views  have  always  been  in  accordance  with 
our  primitive  Friends  on  this  point.  And  at  divers 
times,  when  in  conversation  with  hireling  teachers, 
(and  at  other  times)  I  have  given  it  as  my  opinion, 
that  so  long  as  they  held  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  by  which  they  justify 
wars,  hireling  ministry,  predestination,  and  what  they 
call  the  ordinances,  viz :  water  baptism  and  the  pass- 
over  supper,  mere  relics  of  the  Jewish  law,  so  long 
the  Scriptures  did  such,  more  harm  than  good ;  but 


20 


that  the  fault  was  not  in  the  Scriptures,  but  in  their 
literal  and  carnal  interpretation  of  them — and  that 
would  always  be  the  case  until  they  came  to  the 
Spirit  that  gave  them  forth,  as  no  other  power  could 
break  the  seal,  and  open  them  rightly  to  us.  Hence 
I  have  observed,  in  my  public  communications,  and 
in  conversation  with  the  members  of  different  deno- 
minations, and  others,  who  held  that  the  Scriptures 
are  the  primary  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice — 
that,  according  to  the  true  analogy  of  reasoning,  "  that 
for  which  a  thing  is  such,  the  thing  itself  is  more 
such" — as  the  Spirit  was  before  the  Scriptures,  and 
above  them,  and  without  the  Spirit  they  could  not 
have  been  written  or  known.  And  with  this  simple 
but  conclusive  argument,  I  have  convinced  divers  of 
the  soundness  of  our  doctrine  in  this  respect — that  not 
the  Scriptures  but  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  Jesus 
commanded  his  disciples  to  wait  for,  as  their  only 
rule,  that  would  teach  them  all  things,  and  guide 
them  into  all  truth,  is  the  primary  and  only  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  is  the  only  means  by  which 
our  salvation  is  effected. 

The  extract  contains  so  much  inconsistency,  and  is 
so  incorrect,  that,  as  I  proceed,  it  appears  less  and  less 
worthy  of  a  reply,  and  yet  it  does  contain  some  truth. 
I  admit  that  I  did  assert,  and  have  long  done  it,  that 
we  cannot  believe  what  we  do  not  understand.  This  the 
Scripture  affirms,  Deut.  xxix.  29 — "  The  secret  things 
belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  but  the  things  that 
are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  our  children  for  ever, 
that  we  may  do  all  the  words  of  this  law" — and  all 
that  is  not  revealed,  is  to  us  the  same  as  a  nonentity, 
and  will  for  ever  remain  so,  until  it  is  revealed ;  and 
that  which  is  revealed,  enables  us,  agreeably  to  the 


21 


apostle's  exhortation,  to  give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that 
is  in  us,  to  honest  inquirers.  I  also  assert,  that  we 
ought  to  bring  all  doctrines,  whether  written  or  ver- 
bal, to  the  test  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  in  our  own 
minds,  as  the  only  sure  director  relative  to  the  things 
of  God;  otherwise,  why  is  a  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit  given  to  every  man,  if  it  is  not  to  profit  by : 
and,  if  the  Scriptures  are  above  the  Spirit,  and  a  more 
certain  test  of  doctrines,  why  is  the  Spirit  given,  see- 
ing it  is  useless  ?  But  this  doctrine,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  is  a  fun- 
damental error,  and  is  manifested  to  be  so  by  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  and  also  by  our  primitive 
Friends'  writings.  It  would  seem  that  A.  B.  has 
strained  every  nerve  in  exaggerating  my  words,  for  I 
have  not  said  more  than  R.  Barclay,  and  many  others 
of  our  predecessors,  respecting  the  errors  in  our  Eng- 
lish translation  of  the  Bible.  Hence  it  appears,  that 
she  was  determined  to  criminate  me  at  all  events,  by- 
striving  to  make  me  erroneous  for  saying  that  the 
Gospel  handed  to  us,  was  no  more  authentic  than 
many  other  writings.  Surely  a  person  that  did  not 
assent  to  this,  must  be  ignorant  indeed. 

Are  not  the  writings  of  our  primitive  Friends  as 
authentic  as  any  book  or  writing,  and  especially  such 
as  were  written  so  many  centuries  ago,  the  origi- 
nals of  which  have  been  lost  many  hundred  years  ? 
and  are  not  the  histories  of  passing  events,  written 
by  candid  men  of  the  present  age,  which  thousands 
know  to  be  true,  as  authentic  as  the  Bible  ? 

Her  assertions,  that  I  asked  her  if  she  could  be  so 
ignorant  as  to  believe  in  the  account  of  the  creation 
of  the  world,  and  that  I  had  been  convinced  for  the 
last  ten  years,  that  it  was  only  an  allegory ;  and  that 


22 


it  had  been  especially  revealed  to  me  at  a  meeting  in 
Liberty-street  about  that  time ;  that  I  asked  her  if 
she  thought  Adam  was  any  worse  after  he  had  eaten 
the  forbidden  fruit  than  before,  and  that  I  said  I  did 
not  believe  he  was ;  and  also  her  asserting,  that  I  said 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  no  more  than  a  prophet ;  and 
that  I  further  said,  that  if  she  would  read  the  Scrip- 
tures attentively  she  would  believe  that  Jesus  was  the 
son  of  Joseph :  these  assertions  of  hers,  are  all  false 
and  unfounded,  and  must  be  the  result  of  a  feigned 
or  forced  construction  of  something  I  might  have 
said,  to  suit  her  own  purpose.  For  those  who  do  not 
wish  to  be  satisfied  with  fair  reasoning,  there  is  no 
end  to  their  cavilling  and  misrepresentation.  As  to 
what  she  relates  as  it  regards  the  manner  of  our  com- 
ing into  the  world  in  our  infant  state,  it  is  my  belief, 
that  we  come  into  the  world  in  the  same  state  of  in- 
nocence, and  endowed  with  the  same  propensities 
and  desires  that  our  first  parents  were,  in  their  prime- 
val state ;  and  this  Jesus  Christ  has  established,  and 
must  be  conclusive  in  the  minds  of  all  true  believers ; 
when  he  took  a  little  child  in  his  arms  and  blessed 
him,  and  said  to  them  around  him,  that  except  they 
were  converted,  and  became  as  that  little  child,  they 
should  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Of  course,  all  the  desires  and  propensities  of  that 
little  child,  and  of  our  first  parents  in  their  primeval 
state,  must  have  been  good,  as  they  were  all  the  en- 
dowments of  their  Creator,  and  given  to  them  for  a 
special  and  useful  purpose.  But  it  is  the  improper 
and  unlawful  indulgence  of  them  that  is  evil. 

I  readily  acknowledge,  I  have  not  been  able  to  see 
or  understand,  how  the  cruel  persecution  and  cruci- 
fixion of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  wicked  and  hard-heart- 


23 


ed  Jews,  should  expiate  my  sins;  and  I  never  have 
known  any  thing  to  effect  that  for  me,  but  the  grace 
of  God,  that  taught  me,  agreeably  to  the  apostle's 
doctrine,  to  deny  all  ungodliness  and  the  world's  lusts, 
and  to  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this 
present  world ;  and  as  I  have  faithfully  abode  under 
its  teachings,  in  full  obedience  thereto,  I  have  been 
brought  to  believe  that  my  sins  were  forgiven,  and  I 
permitted  to  sit  under  the  Lord's  teaching,  as  saith 
the  prophet :  "  that  the  children  of  the  Lord  are  all 
taught  of  the  Lord,  and  in  righteousness  they  are  es- 
tablished, and  great  is  the  peace  of  his  children." 
And  so  long  as  I  feel  this  peace,  there  is  nothing  in 
this  world  that  makes  me  afraid,  as  it  respects  my 
eternal  condition.  But  if  any  of  my  friends  have  re- 
ceived any  known  benefit  from  any  outward  sacri- 
fice, I  do  not  envy  them  their  privilege.  But,  surely, 
they  would  not  be  willing  that  I  should  acknowledge 
as  a  truth,  that  which  I  have  no  kind  of  knowledge  of. 
I  am  willing  to  admit,  that  Divine  Mercy  is  no  doubt 
watching  over  his  rational  creation  for  their  good, 
and  may  secretly  work  at  times  for  their  preserva- 
tion ;  but,  if,  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness,  he 
sees  meet  to  hide  it  from  us,  as  most  consistent  with 
his  wisdom  and  our  good,  let  us  have  a  care  that  we 
do  not,  in  the  pride  of  our  hearts,  undertake  to  pry  into 
his  secret  counsels,  lest  we  offend;  but  be  content 
with  what  he  is  pleased  to  reveal  to  us,  let  it  be  more 
or  less,  and,  especially,  if  he  is  pleased  to  speak  peace 
to  our  minds.  And  when  he  graciously  condescends 
to  do  this,  we  shall  know  it  to  be  a  peace  that  the 
world  cannot  give,  with  all  its  enjoyments,  neither 
take  away,  with  all  its  frowns. 

I  shall  now  draw  to  a  close,  and,  with  the  saluta- 


24 

tion  of  gospel  love,  I  subscribe  myself  thy  affection- 
ate and  sympathizing  friend  and  brother, 

ELIAS  HICKS. 

To  Edwin  A.  Atlee. 


REMARKS. 

In  perusing  the  preceding  correspondence,  we  have 
been  forcibly  struck  with  the  spirit  in  which  the  let- 
ter of  Elias  Hicks  to  Edwin  A.  Atlee,  appears  to  be 
written. 

Let  any  person  calmly  and  dispassionately  read  it 
and  the  statement  of  Anna  Braithwaite,  which  it  is 
designed  to  refute,  and  then  seriously  say,  whether 
the  language  which  E.  H.  uses,  in  speaking  of  Anna 
Braithwaite,  comports  with  the  meekness  and  gentle- 
ness of  a  gospel  minister. 

Does  it  correspond  with  that  "  gospel  love"  to 
which  he  alludes  in  the  concluding  paragraph  of  the 
letter,  or  with  that  readiness  to  forgive,  which  is  so 
strongly  inculcated  in  the  precepts  of  Christ  ? 

Even  if  we  could  admit  the  assertions  of  A.  B.  to 
be  incorrect,  it  must  be  granted,  we  think,  by  all, 
that  she  has  expressed  herself  in  respectful  and  be- 
coming language. 

The  letter  of  E.  H.  is  generally  vague  and  incon- 
clusive, and  appears  to  meet  the  statement  of  A.  B. 
in  but  few  points,  and  most  of  those  it  admits  to  be 
correct.  He  digresses  into  the  discussion  of  irrele- 
vant subjects,  as  if  to  divert  our  attention  from  the 
main  object ;  the  greater  part  of  it  being  taken  up 
in  treating  upon  matters  which  are  in  no  way  con- 
nected with  the  controversy. 


25 


Anna  Braithwaite  has  not  said,  in  any  part  of  her 
letter,  that  Elias  Hicks  "  asserted  that  the  Scriptures 
were  held  in  too  high  estimation  among  the  professors 
of  Christianity  generally" — her  words  are,  "  He  spoke 
on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures,  as  being  much  too 
highly  thought  of  amongst  Friends." 

Hence,  it  is  clear,  that  although  E.  H.  says  much 
on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures,  he  has  not  answered 
the  assertion  of  A.  B.  but  has  contended  against  some- 
thing entirely  foreign  to  the  subject  under  discussion ; 
and  although  he  asserts  that  "  his  views  on  this  point 
have  always  been  in  accordance  with  our  primitive 
Friends,"  it  is  obvious  that  by  "  this  point,"  he  alludes 
merely  to  "  the  Scriptures  being  held  in  too  estima- 
tion by  those  who  consider  them  as  the  only  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ;"  a  subject  which  A.  B.  has  not 
once  mentioned. 

He  further  says,  the  assertion  "  that  the  Scriptures 
were  held  in  too  high  estimation"  was  "  generally 
made  in  opposition  to  such  as  held  them  to  be  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  practice" — hence  it  follows, 
that  he  has  made  the  assertion  at  other  times,  in  op- 
position to  those  who  do  not  hold  them  to  be  the  only- 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  for  the  word  "  generally" 
will  admit  of  many  exceptions. 

Elias  Hicks,  in  his  letter  to  E.  A.  Atlee,  as  well  as 
more  pointedly  and  at  large,  in  the  subsequent  one  to 
Dr.  N.  Shoemaker,  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment. In  the  latter  we  find  the  following  assertion : 
"But  I  do  not  consider  that  the  crucifixion  of  the 
outward  body  of  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus,  on  the 
cross,  was  an  atonement  for  any  sins  but  the  legal 
sins  of  the  Jews."  We  would  simply  wish  this  doc- 

o 


26 


trine  to  be  compared  with  the  following  passages  of 
Scripture : 

"  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him,  (Christ,) 
should  all  fulness  dwell.  And  having  made  peace 
through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile 
all  things  unto  himself.  By  him,  I  say,  whether  they 
be  things  in  earth  or  things  in  heaven.  And  you  that 
were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind 
by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled  in  the 
body  of  his  flesh  ,  through  death,  to  present  you  holy 
and  unblameable,  and  unreproveable  in  his  sight." 
Paul  to  the  Colossians,  Chap.  i.  19,  20,  21,  22. 

"  And  I  lay  down  my  life  for  my  sheep,  therefore 
doth  my  Father  love  me  because  I  lay  down  my  life 
that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from 
me ;  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  /  have  power  to  lay 
it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This 
commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father."  John, 
Chap.  x.  15.  17,  18. 

These  and  many  others  which  might  be  quoted, 
such  as  "Ye  are  bought  with  a  price" — "  Christ  died 
for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scripture" — "  by  the 
which  will  ye  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all,"  Paul — "For- 
asmuch then  as  Christ  has  suffered  for  us  in  the  flesh, 
arm  yourselves,"  &c.  Peter — "  Jesus  Christ  the 
righteous  —  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins, 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,"  John — conclusively  prove  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  the  Redeemer  of  the  whole  world.  Indeed,  if 
we  strike  from  the  pages  of  holy  writ  those  parts 
which  inculcate  this  prominent  feature  in  the  system 
of  Gospel  Redemption,  we  shall  leave  but  a  small 
portion  of  several  of  the  books  of  the  sacred  volume. 


27 


Now  who  can  believe  but  that  the  statement  of  A.  B- 
on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures  is  true  ? 

The  whole  of  E.  H's  observations  and  reasoning 
upon  the  superiority  of  the  Spirit  over  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  appointment  of  representatives  to  the  quar- 
terly meeting,  are  entirely  foreign  to  the  subject  of 
Anna  Braithwaite's  letter;  they- are  not  noticed  in  it. 

E.  H.  says,  "  I  also  assert  that  we  ought  to  bring 
all  doctrines,  whether  written  or  verbal,  to  the  test  of 
the  Spirit  of  Truth  in  our  own  minds,  as  the  only  sure 
director  relative  to  the  things  of  God ;  otherwise  why 
is  a  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  given  to  every  man,  if 
it  is  not  to  profit  by  ?  And  if  the  Scriptures  are  above 
the  Spirit,  and  a  more  certain  test  of  doctrines,  why 
is  the  Spirit  given,  seeing  it  is  useless  ?" 

From  these  expressions  it  would  appear  as  though 
the  only  purpose  for  which  the  manifestation  of  the 
Spirit  is  given,  is  to  be  a  test  of  doctrines ;  and  that 
if  we  do  not  make  it  the  supreme  judge  in  this  point, 
it  is  of  no  use  at  all. 

We  can  readily  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth 
would  prove  an  invaluable  blessing  to  man,  as  a  guide 
in  the  practical  duties  of  Christianity,  were  it  consi- 
dered to  be  no  test  of  doctrine  at  all.  But  on  this 
point  we  shall  quote  Robert  Barclay's  Apology,  which 
has  long  been  recognized  as  the  standard  doctrinal 
work  of  the  Society  of  Friends  : 

"  We  do  look  upon  them  (the  Scriptures,)  as  the 
only  fit  outward  judge  of  controversies  among  Chris- 
tians ;  and  that  whatsoever  doctrine  is  contrary  unto 
their  testimony,  may  therefore  justly  be  rejected  as 
false.  And  for  our  parts,  we  are  very  willing  that  all 
our  doctrines  and  practices  be  tried  by  them ;  which 
we  never  refused,  nor  ever  shall,  in  all  controversies 


23 


with  our  adversaries,  as  the  judge  and  test.  We  shall 
also  be  very  willing  to  admit  it  as  a  positive  certain 
maxim,  that  whatsoever  any  do,  pretending  to  the 
Spirit,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  be  ac- 
counted and  reckoned  a  delusion  of  the  devil." 

After  enumerating  several  assertions  of  A.  B.'s, 
E.  H.  says,  "These  assertions  of  her's  are  all  false 
and  unfounded,  and  must  be  the  result  of  a  feigned 
or  forced  construction  of  something  I  might  have  said, 
to  suit  her  own  purpose." 

Had  E.  H.  informed  us  what  it  was  he  "  might 
have  said,"  (or  as  we  suppose  he  means  did  say)  we 
could  have  judged  for  ourselves,  whether  all  "these 
assertions  of  her's  are  false  and  unfounded  ;"  and 
after  admitting  fully,  as  he  has  done,  in  this  letter, 
that  we  cannot  believe  what  we  do  not  understand, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  no  test  of  doctrine,  and  that 
the  atonement  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  is  of  no  avail 
in  the  salvation  of  man,  his  denial  of  the  points  above 
alluded  to,  must  certainly  be  considered  as  making 
very  little  in  support  of  his  cause. 

The  subjoined  letter  from  Ann  Shipley,  was  writ- 
ten, we  are  informed,  without  any  solicitation  on  the 
part  of  the  individual  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and 
has  been  printed  in  New  York.  It  furnishes  a  full 
and  decided  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  Anna  Braith- 
waite's  statement,  and  is  supported  by  the  testimony 
of  another  respectable  individual,  who  was  present 
during  a  part  or  the  whole  of  the  second  conversation. 
He  has  been  seen,  we  understand,  on  the  occasion, 
and  asserts  that  part  of  A.  B.'s  statement  which  re- 
hearses the  conversation  that  took  place  while  he  was 
present,  to  be  correct 

It  is  but  proper  to  mention,  that  all  the  letters  are 


29 

published  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  [of  t\w 
writers. 

Letter  of  Ann  Shipley. 
New  York,  10th  mo.  loth,  1824. 

DEAR  FRIEND, 

It  has  been  with  feelings  of  extreme  regret  and 
astonishment  that  I  have  read  two  pamphlets  pub- 
lished in  your  city,  entitled  "  Misrepresentations  of 
A.  Braithwaite,  &c." 

It  is  not  my  desire  to  discuss  or  widen  the  contro- 
versy which  unhappily  exists  respecting  the  senti- 
ments of  those  who  are  thus  placed  before  the  public 
as  the  accusers  of  our  dear  friend  Anna  Braithwaite : 
but  it  has  become  in  my  mind  a  serious  question  whe- 
ther I  ought  to  permit  the  character  of  an  absent 
friend,  whose  distance  from  her  accusers  prevents  her 
from  vindicating  herself  against  the  gross  aspersions 
so  illiberally  cast  upon  her,  without  endeavouring  to 
do  all  in  my  power  to  avert  the  arrows  of  calumny 
and  persecution  with  which  she  has  been  so  cruelly 
assailed,  but  which,  as  relates  to  her  own  innocency, 
and  a  consciousness  of  having  faithfully  discharged 
what  she  believed  to  be  her  religious  duty,  will,  I 
trust,  fall  harmlessly  at  her  feet, 

After  deliberately  weighing  the  subject,  and  the 
very  unpleasant  and  painful  considerations  associated 
with  it,  duty  to  my  absent  friend,  respect  to  my  own 
character,  and  above  all,  a  regard  for  the  cause  of 
truth,  obliges  me  to  assure  thee,  and  all  A.  Braith- 
waite's  friends,  that  I  was  present  during  the  conver- 
sations between  her  and  Elias  Hicks.  The  statement 


30 


she  left  was  correct.  The  subject  of  the  forbidden 
fruit  was  mentioned,  but  I  have  not  a  perfect  recol- 
lection of  the  terms  made  use  of,  and  never  have,  at 
any  time,  given  a  different  account  respecting  it,  al- 
though the  contrary  has  been  reported. 

I  believe  her  visit  to  him  was  with  sincere  desires 
that  she  might  be  enabled  to  convince  him  of  what 
she  thought  to  be  his  errors,  and  from  feelings  of  love 
and  good  will  towards  him. 

I  also  believe  when  A.  Braithwaite  left  that  state- 
ment, she  had  no  desire  to  have  it  circulated  in  the 
manner  it  has  been  done,  but  with  a  view  that  should 
any  erroneous  representations  take  place  respecting 
the  conversations,  that  an  accurate  account  of  them 
might  be  produced  to  prevent  trouble. 

It  may  appear  to  some  very  extraordinary,  that  I 
should  thus  express  myself  in  direct  contradiction  to 
Elias  Hicks ;  and  my  dear  friend,  thou  mayest  be 
assured  that  nothing  but  a  sense  of  duty,  the  peculia- 
rities of  the  case,  and  the  entire  conviction  of  mind 
of  the  correctness  of  A.  Braithwaite's  statement, 
would  ever  induce  me  to  do  so. 

Signed,  ANN  SHIPLEY. 


In  order  to  show  that  the  statement  of  Anna 
Braithwaite  can  be  fully  and  firmly  supported ;  and 
that  the  sentiments  which  she  attributes  to  Elias 
Hicks  are  by  no  means  new  to  him,  we  subjoin  the 
following  documents,  which  are  but  a  part  of  the  tes- 
timony which  might  be  adduced,  all  corroborating 
her  account  in  the  most  plain  and  positive  manner. 


31 


Statement  of  Josef  l  Whitall. 

Having  attended  the  last  yearly  meeting  at  New 
York,  I  heard  Elias  Hicks  declare,  in  public  testi- 
mony, in  a  large  meeting,  at  the  North  House,  "  The 
same  power  that  made  Christ  a  Christian  must  make 
us  Christians,  and  the  same  power  that  saved  him 
must  save  us."  Being  very  uneasy  with  the  doctrine, 
I  took  a  private  opportunity  to  state  to  him  my  unea- 
siness. I  informed  him,  that,  for  several  years,  re- 
ports had  been  in  circulation  unfavourable  towards 
him,  and  that*on  these  occasions  I  had  vindicated  his 
character,  from  a  belief  that  he  must  have  been  mis- 
understood, until  last  fall  I  met  with  a  piece  in  wri- 
ting, said  to  be  from  his  pen,  in  which  he  called 
Christ  the  Jewish  Messiah ;  that  he  was  alone  the 
Saviour  of  the  Jews ;  and  that  he  was  not  the  Son 
of  God  until  after  the  baptism  of  John,  and  the  de- 
scent of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  this  I  offered  my  ob- 
jections as  unscriptural,  but  he  justified  them.  Ha 
also  declared  that  he  considered  it  a  matter  of  the 
greatest  encouragement  to  believe  that  Christ  was  no 
more  than  a  man,  for  if  he  were  any  thing  more  it 
would  destroy  the  effect  of  his  example  to  him.  He 
admitted  that  he  had  not,  till  of  latter  time,  held  up 
the  doctrine  that  Christ  was  liable  to  fall  like  other 
men.  When  I  quoted  the  testimony  of  John,  that  the 
Word  was  made  or  took  of  flesh,  he  said  it  was  im- 
possible. I  offered  my  sentiments,  that,  if  he  per- 
sisted in  preaching  these  doctrines,  so  contrary  to 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  testimonies  of  our  ancient 
Friends,  it  would  produce  one  of  the  greatest  schisms 
that  had  ever  happened.    He  allowed  it  would  pro- 


32 


duce  a  schism,  but  that  it  would  soon  be  over,  for  he 
believed  his  doctrines  must  and  would  prevail.  Seeing 
that  we  differed  so  widely  in  sentiment  on  these 
points,  I  proposed  to  him  to  have  a  few  solid  Friends, 
ministers  and  elders,  convened,  that  a  discussion  might 
be  had ;  but  he  would  not  consent  thereto,  saying, 
that  he  was  so  confirmed  in  his  sentiments,  that  he 
would  persevere  therein  let  the  consequences  be  what 
they  might. 

JOSEPH  WHITALL. 

12  mo.  12th,  1822. 

E.  Hicks,  in  a  letter  dated  12  mo.  21st,  1822, 
speaking  of  this  statement,  says,  "  As  these  charges 
are  not  literally  true,  being  founded  on  his  (J.  W.'s,) 
own  forced  and  improper  construction  of  my  words, 
I  deny  them,"  &c. 

Here  it  is  important  to  observe,  that  the  language 
used  by  E.  H.  is  similar  to  that  in  which  he  denies 
some  few  points  in  the  statement  of  A.  Braithwaite, 
though  in  the  case  of  J.  W.  he  goes  no  further  than 
to  say  that  they  are  not  literally  true ;  an  assertion 
which  does  not  in  the  smallest  degree  affect  their 
substantial  truth. 

If  Elias  Hicks  really  believes  that  he  has  cause  to 
complain  of  a  feigned,  or  forced,  or  improper  con- 
struction being  put  upon  his  words,  why  does  he 
not  come  out  and  tell  what  he  did  say,  and  leav  e  the 
world  to  judge  how  far  his  meaning  has  been  per- 
verted by  a  feigned,  or  forced,  or  improper  construc- 
tion of  his  language  ? 

The  fact  is,  there  is  neither  construction  nor  com- 
ment, but  a  simple  statement  of  his  own  words ;  and 
although  he  thus  speaks  of  the  statement  of  Joseph 


33 


Whitall,  yet  he  did  fully  admit  it  to  be  substantially 
true,  in  a  conference  which  J.  W.  afterwards  had  with 
him  on  the  subject,  as  is  expressed  in  a  letter  from  J. 
W.  dared  2nd  mo.  18th,  1823,  viz. 

"  I  thought  it  proper  when  he  (E.  H.)  was  in  our 
neighbourhood,  to  call  upon  him  for  an  explanation, 
which  he  was  free  to  give,  and  which  fully  confirmed 
every  sentiment  which  I  had  entertained  concerning 
his  new  doctrines.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  admit  every- 
thing which  I  had  stated  as  his  doctrine,  with  one 
small  exception  scarcely  worth  naming." 

This  exception  was  simply  this  :  E.  Hicks  said, 
that  instead  of  stating  to  J.  W.  that  Christ  was  no 
more  than  a  man,  he  said  he  was  no  more  than  an 
Israelite. 


We  shall  now  lay  before  our  readers  the  following- 
letter,  written  by  Eiias  Hicks  to  a  respectable  physi- 
cian of  this  city,  which  will  be  found  to  corroborate 
the  sentiments  which  he  has  avowed  in  the  hearing 
of  these  Friends. 

Letter  from  Elias  Hicks  to  Dr.  N.  Shoemaker,  of 
Philadelphia. 

Jericho,  3d  mo.  Slst,  1823. 

DEAR  FRIEND, 

Thy  acceptable  letter  of  1st  month  last,  came  duly 
to  hand,  but  my  religious  engagements,  and  other 
necessary  concerns,  have  prevented  my  giving  it  that 
attention  that  its  contents  seem  to  demand.  Thou 
queries  after  my  views  of  the  suffering  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  what  was  the  object  of 

E 


34 


the  shedding  of  his  blood  on  the  cross,  and  what  be- 
nefits resulted  to  mankind  by  the  shedding  of  this 
blood,  &c.  I  shall  answer  in  a  very  simple  way,  as 
I  consider  the  whole  subject  to  be  a  very  simple  one, 
as  all  truth  is  simple  when  we  free  ourselves  from  the 
improper  bias  of  tradition  and  education,  which  rests 
as  a  burthensome  stone  on  the  minds  of  most  of  the 
children  of  men,  and  which  very  much  mars  the  unity 
and  harmony  of  society. 

1st.  By  what  means  did  Jesus  suffer?  The  an- 
swer is  plain,  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  and  be- 
cause his  works  were  righteous  and  theirs  were  wick- 
ed. Query.  Did  God  send  him  into  the  world  pur- 
posely to  suffer  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men  ? 
By  no  means ;  but  to  live  a  righteous  and  godly  life, 
(which  was  the  design  and  end  of  God's  creating 
man  in  the  beginning,)  and  thereby  be  a  perfect  ex- 
ample to  such  of  mankind  as  should  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  him  and  of  his  perfect  life.  For,  if  it  was 
the  purpose  and  will  of  God  that  he  should  die  by 
the  hands  of  wicked  men,  then  the  Jews,  by  crucify- 
ing him,  would  have  done  God's  will,  and  of  course 
would  all  have  stood  justified  in  his  sight,  which  could 
not  be.  But  it  was  permitted  so  to  be,  as  it  had  been 
with  many  of  the  prophets  and  wise  and  good  men 
that  were  before  him,  who  suffered  death  by  the 
hands  of  wicked  men  for  righteousness  sake,  as  en- 
samples  to  those  that  came  after,  that  they  should  ac- 
count nothing  too  dear  to  give  up  for  the  truth's  sake, 
not  even  their  own  lives. 

But  the  shedding  of  his  blood  by  the  wicked  scribes 
and  pharisees,  and  people  of  Israel,  had  a  particular 
effect  on  the  Jewish  nation,  as  by  this,  the  topstone 
and  worst  of  all  their  crimes,  was  filled  up  the  mea- 


35 


sure  of  their  iniquities,  and  which  put  an  end  to  that 
dispensation,  together  with  its  law  and  covenant. 
That  as  John's  baptism  summed  up  in  one,  all  the 
previous  water  baptisms  of  that  dispensation,  and  put 
an  end  to  them,  which  he  sealed  with  his  blood,  so 
this  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  summed  up 
in  one  all  the  outward  atoning  sacrifices  of  the  sha- 
dowy dispensation,  and  put  an  end  to  them  all,  there- 
by abolishing  the  law,  having  previously  fulfilled  all 
its  righteousness,  and,  as  saith  the  apostle,  "He  blot- 
ted out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances,  nailing  them 
to  his  cross;"  having  put  an  end  to  the  law  that  com- 
manded them,  with  all  its  legal  sins,  and  abolished  all 
its  legal  penalties,  so  that  all  the  Israelites  that  be- 
lieved on  him,  after  he  exclaimed  on  the  cross  "It  is 
finished,"  might  abstain  from  all  the  rituals  of  their 
law,  such  as  circumcision,  water  baptisms,  outward 
sacrifices,  seventh  day  sabbaths,  and  all  their  other 
holy  days,  &c.  and  be  blameless ;  and  the  legal  sins 
that  any  were  guilty  of,  was  now  remitted  and  done 
away  by  the  abolishment  of  the  law  that  commanded 
them,  for  "  where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  trans- 
gression." But  those  that  did  not  believe  on  him, 
many  of  them  were  destroyed  by  the  sword,  and  the 
rest  were  scattered  abroad  in  the  earth.  But,  /  do 
not  consider  that  the  crucifixion  of  the  outward  body 
of  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  was  an  atone- 
ment for  any  sins  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews ;  for 
as  their  law  was  outward,  so  their  legal  sins  and  their 
penalties  were  outward,  and  these  could  be  atoned 
for  by  an  outward  sacrifice ;  and  this  last  outward 
sacrifice  was  a  full  type  of  the  inward  sacrifice  that 
every  sinner  must  make,  in  giving  up  that  sinful  life 
of  his  own  will,  in  and  by  which  he  hath  from  time 


36 


to  time,  crucified  the  innocent  life  of  God  in  his  own 
soul ;  and  which  Paul  calls  "  the  old  man  with  his 
deeds,"  or  "  the  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition,'5 
who  hath  taken  God's  seat  in  the  heart,  and  there 
exalteth  itself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  is  wor- 
shipped, sitting  as  Judge  and  Supreme.  Now  all  this 
life,  power,  and  will  of  man,  must  be  slain  and  die 
on  the  cross  spiritually,  as  Jesus  died  on  the  cross 
outwardly,  and  this  is  the  true  atonement,  which  that 
outward  atonement  was  a  clear  and  full  type  of.  This 
the  apostle  Paul  sets  forth  in  a  plain  manner,  Ro- 
mans vi.  3  &  4.  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,  that,  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  (outwardly),  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we,"  having  by  the  spiritual  baptism 
witnessed  a  death  to  sin,  shall  know  a  being  raised 
up  spiritually  and  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

But  the  primitive  Christian  church  having  soon  af- 
ter the  apostles'  days,  turned  away  from  their  true 
and  only  sufficient  guide,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  that 
Jesus  commanded  his  disciples  to  wait  for,  and  not 
attempt  to  do  any  thing  until  they  had  received  it,  but 
assured  them  that  when  they  had  received  it,  it  would 
be  a  complete  and  sufficient  rule,  without  the  addition 
of  any  other  thing,  as  it  would  lead  them  and  guide 
them  in  all  truth.  And  to  its  sufficiency,  John,  the 
beloved  apostle,  bore  this  noble  and  exalted  testimo- 
ny, in  full  accordance  with  his  Divine  Master,  in  this 
emphatic  language  to  his  fellow  believers:  "  Ye  have 
an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  need  not  that  any 
man  teach  you,  but  as  the  same  anointing  teacheth 
you,  which  is  truth,  and  is  no  lie."    But  the  belie- 


37 


vers,  by  too  much  looking  to  their  old  traditions, 
soon  lost  sight  of  or  neglected  fully  to  attend,  as  they 
ought  to  have  done,  to  their  inward  guide,  turned 
their  attention  outward  to  the  letter,  which  always 
killeth  those  who  lean  upon  it  as  a  rule.  Hence,  the 
successors  of  those  meek  and  self-denying  followers 
of  the  example  and  commands  of  Jesus,  apostatised 
from  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  by  which  the  unity 
was  broken,  and  they  soon  became  divided  into  sects 
and  parties,  and  persecuted  each  other ;  and  invented 
and  promulgated  inconsistent  and  unsound  doctrines, 
such  as  original  sin,  certifying  that  all  Adam's  off- 
spring was  condemned  to  eternal  punishment  for  one 
mis-step  of  our  first  parents;  for  they  don't  appear  to 
have  been  guilty  of  but  one  failure,  and  that  it  ap- 
pears they  made  satisfaction  for  at  the  time  of  their 
first  arraignment  by  their  benevolent  creator,  mani- 
festing sorrow  and  repentance :  which  seems  to  be 
fairly  implied  by  the  sequel  of  the  interview  between 
them ;  for  it  is  said  he  clothed  them  with  coats  of 
skin,  to  hide  their  nakedness,  which  is  an  emblem  of 
durable  clothing,  and  as  their  nakedness  ivas  not  an 
outward  one,  but  a  nakedness  of  soul,  not  being  able 
to  conceal  their  sin  from  the  All-penetrating  Eye  of 
Divine  Justice,  so  when  he  had  brought  them,  through 
conviction,  to  see  their  error  and  to  repent  of  it,  he 
was  reconciled  to  them,  and  clothed  them  again  with 
his  Holy  Spirit. 

And  inasmuch  as  those  idle  promulgators  of  origi- 
nal sin,  believe  they  are  made  sinners  without  their 
consent  or  knowledge,  which,  according  to  the  nature 
and  reason  of  things,  every  rational  mind  must  see  is 
impossible ;  so  likewise  they  are  idle  and  ignorant 
enough  to  believe  they  are  made  righteous  without 


38 


their  consent  or  knowledge,  by  the  righteousness  of 
one  who  lived  on  the  earth  near  two  thousand  years 
before  they  had  an  existence,  and  this  by  the  cruel 
hands  of  wicked  men  slaying  an  innocent  and  righ- 
teous one ;  and  these  are  bold  and  daring  enough  to 
lay  this  cruel  and  unholy  act  in  the  charge  of  Divine 
Justice,  as  having  purposely  ordained  it  to  be  so :  But 
what  an  outrage  it  is  against  every  righteous  law  of 
God  and  man,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly  testify. 
See  Exodus,  c.  23,  v.  7.  "  Keep  thee  far  from  a  false 
matter,  and  the  innocent  and  righteous  slay  thou  not, 
for  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked."  Deuteronomy,  c. 
27,  v.  25.  "  Cursed  be  he  that  taketh  reward  to 
slay  an  innocent  person and  much  might  be  pro- 
duced to  show  the  wickedness  and  absurdity  of  the 
doctrine,  that  would  accuse  the  perfectly  just,  all- 
wise  and  merciful  Jehovah,  of  so  barbarous  and  cruel 
an  act,  as  that  of  slaying  his  innocent  and  righteous 
Son,  to  atone  for  the  sins  and  iniquities  of  the  un- 
godly. 

Surely,  is  it  possible,  that  any  rational  being  that 
has  any  right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  that  would 
be  willing  to  accept  forgiveness  of  his  sins  on  such 
terms  !  !  !  Would  he  not  rather  go  forward  and  offer 
himself  wholly  up  to  suffer  all  the  penalties  due  to  his 
crimes,  rather  than  the  innocent  should  suffer?  Nay — 
was  he  so  hardy  as  to  acknowledge  a  willingness  to  be 
saved  through  such  a  medium,  would  it  not  prove  that 
he  stood  in  direct  opposition  to  every  principle  of  jus- 
tice and  honesty,  of  mercy  and  love,  and  show  him- 
self  to  be  a  poor  selfish  creature,  and  unworthy  of  no- 
tice!  !  ! 

Having  given  thee  a  sketch  of  my  views  on  the 
subject  of  thy  queries,  how  far  thou  may  consider 


39 


them  correct,  I  must  leave  to  thy  judgment  and  con- 
sideration ;  and  may  now  recommend  thee  to  shake 
off  all  traditional  views  that  thou  hast  imbibed  from 
external  evidences,  and  turn  thy  mind  to  the  light 
within,  as  thy  only  true  teacher :  wait  patiently  for 
its  instruction,  and  it  will  teach  thee  more  than  men 
or  books  can  do ;  and  lead  thee  to  a  clearer  sight  and 
sense  of  what  thou  desirest  to  know,  than  I  have 
words  clearly  to  convey  it  to  thee  in.  That  this 
may  be  thy  experience,  is  my  sincere  desire ;  and 
with  love  to  thyself  and  family,  I  conclude, 
Thy  affectionate  friend, 

ELIAS  HICKS. 

Dr.  N.  Shoemaker. 


The  reader  has  now  before  him  the  extract  of  the 
letter  written  by  A.  Braithwaite,  attested  by  Ann 
Shipley,  and  another  Friend  who  was  present  during 
a  part  of  one  of  the  conversations ;  also  the  statement 
of  Joseph  Whitall,  subsequently  admitted  by  Elias 
Hicks ;  likewise  Elias  Hicks'  two  letters,  corrobo- 
rating the  former — by  all  which  it  must  be  evident, 
that  the  account  of  the  conversation,  as  given 
by  Anna  Braithwaite,  is  established  and  confirmed 
in  the  most  clear  and  positive  manner,  in  all  its  par- 
ticulars. 

We  are  far  from  wishing  to  attribute  to  Elias 
Hicks,  a  single  sentiment  which  he  has  not  avowed 
— but  when  we  read  his  own  letters,  and  the  state- 
ments thus  given  by  several  respectable  persons,  of 
what  he  has  declared  in  their  hearing,  corroborated 
as  they  are  by  other  documents,  which  we  could  pro- 


40 


duce,  if  necessary,  we  think  the  conclusion  is  cer- 
tainly a  fair  one,  that  he  does  deny  the  propitiatory 
sacrifice  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
considers  his  death  to  be  of  no  more  importance  to 
us  than  the  death  of  one  of  the  martyrs — that  he  does 
away  a  belief  in  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  makes  him  a  mere  man — that  he  greatly  under- 
values the  blessing  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  speaks  of 
them  in  language  calculated  to  lessen  our  respect  and 
regard  for  their  authority,  and  totally  discards  them 
as  a  test  of  the  soundness  of  doctrines. 

In  all  which  particulars  he  differs  from  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Society  of  Friends,  as  set  forth  in  Bar- 
clay's Apology ;  a  book  which  has  always  been  ac- 
knowledged as  their  standard  doctrinal  work. 


A  WW  WMW 

OF 

ELMS  HICKS'1  LETTER 

TO 

DR.  NATHAN  SHOEMAKER. 


Note. — The  foregoing  letter  of  Elias  Hicks  to  Dr. 
Nathan  Shoemaker,  has  been  widely  disseminated  in 
manuscript,  and  represented  by  its  admirers  as  con- 
taming  some  new  and  very  rational  and  consistent 
views  on  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  &c.  It  pur- 
ports to  be  a  deliberate  reply  to  certain  queries  pro- 
pounded for  the  author's  consideration.  The  writer 
says,  "  he  considers  the  whole  subject  to  be  a  very 
simple  one and  as  he  had  nearly  two  months  to  re- 
flect upon  it  before  writing  his  answer,  we  may  fairly 
conclude  that  he  has  given  us  his  sober  and  matured 
opinion  on  the  points  in  question.  How  "  simple" 
he  has  made  the  subject  appear,  by  his  manner  of 
treating  it  in  this  letter,  we  shall  endeavour  to  shoir 
in  our  remarks. 


REVIEW,  &c. 


We  suppose  it  will  readily  be  admitted  by  all  our 
readers,  that  the  preceding  letter  exhibits  the  real 
sentiments  of  its  author  upon  the  several  subjects  of 
which  it  treats.  His  object  in  writing  it,  as  stated  in 
the  exordium,  appears  to  have  been,  to  give  "  in  a 
very  simple  way"  his  44  views  of  the  suffering  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  what  was  the  object  of 
the  shedding  of  his  blood  on  the  cross,  and  what  be- 
nefits resulted  to  mankind  by  the  shedding  of  this 
blood."  We  would  request  our  readers  to  notice  this 
particularly,  as  the  letter  contains  so  much  irrelevant 
matter,  that  there  is  danger  of  losing  sight  of  the  main 
subjects. 

As  Elias  Hicks  appeals  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
the  authority  for  his  opinions,  and  professes  to  predi- 
cate his  arguments  upon  them,  we  shall  assume  it  as 
granted  that  their  authority  is  finally  conclusive.  We 
view  them  as  the  only  legitimate  test  of  our  respec- 
tive sentiments,  and  to  be  consistent  with  his  own 
practice,  he  must  concur  with  us  in  such  judgment. 
In  the  following  pages,  therefore,  Scripture  language 
must  be  the  umpire  between  us. 

That  Jesus  Christ  "  suffered  by  the  hands  of  wick- 
ed men  ;"  "  that  his  works  were  righteous  and  theirs 
wicked,"  are  positions  which  we  freely  admit ;  but 
that  his  death  was  merely  a  consequence  of  this  latter 
fact,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  that  he  was  no  more 
than  a  martyr  to  his  principles,  is  to  us  not  quite  so 


44 


clear.  It  is  an  assertion  which  we  do  not  find  sup- 
ported by  Scripture  testimony,  and  as  it  is  calculated 
to  destroy  our  faith  in  the  vicarious  nature  of  his  suf- 
ferings, we  think  it  unsafe  to  adopt  it. 

Our  blessed  Redeemer  tells  us  himself,  and  there 
can  be  no  higher  authority,  that  he  "  came  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many;"  " that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
life." 

Elias  Hicks  asks,  "  Did  God  send  him  into  the 
world  purposely  to  suffer  death  by  the  hands  of  wick- 
ed men?" 

His  object  in  putting  the  query  in  this  form,  as 
well  as  in  making  the  Jews  put  Jesus  to  death,  mere- 
ly because  his  works  were  righteous  and  theirs  were 
wicked,  must,  we  think,  be  obvious  to  all.  It  is  to 
destroy  in  the  very  outset,  a  belief  in  the  atonement — 
to  alarm  us  with  the  apparent  absurdity  of  making 
wicked  men  agents  in  the  plan  of  redemption — and 
to  reduce  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flesh, 
to  a  complete  parallel  with  those  of  the  martyrs.  But 
Christ  himself  tells  us  that  he  did  come  purposely  to 
suffer  death,  and  that  death  was  to  be  a  ransom  for 
many.  Now,  whether  he  suffered  by  wicked  or  by 
righteous  men,  it  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  his  suf- 
ferings— they  are  still  redeeming. 

If  we  vary  the  query  so  as  to  read,  Did  God  send 
him  into  the  world  purposely  to  lay  down  his  life  a 
ransom  for  sinners  ?  (and  we  shall  still  preserve  the 
plain  meaning  of  E.  H.'s  query,)  we  are  compelled 
to  reply  in  the  affirmative,  or  to  deny  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  the  Lord  Jesus  himself,  and  of  prophets, 
evangelists,  and  apostles. 

That  it  was  a  prominent  part  of  the  mission  of  the 


46 


Saviour,  "  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self," and  "  to  lay  down  his  life  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,"  is  evident  from  the  following  passages 
of  Scripture : 

"  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our 
sorrows,  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten  of 
God  and  afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for  our 
transgressions,  he  ivas  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his 
stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone 
astray ;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way ; 
and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all. 
He  was  oppressed  and  afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not 
his  mouth ;  he  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter, 
and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he 
opened  not  his  mouth.  He  was  taken  from  prison 
and  from  judgment,  and  who  shall  declare  his  gene- 
ration, for  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  liv- 
ing ;  for  the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken. 
And  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked  and  with 
the  rich  in  his  death,  because  he  hath  done  no  vio- 
lence ;  neither  was  any  deceit  in  his  mouth :  yet  it 
pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him,  he  hath  put  him  to 
grief.  When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  [Hebrew 
word,  life,']  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed, 
he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the 
Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  the 
travail  of  his  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied.  By  his 
knowlege  (or,  as  a  more  correct  rendering,  "  by  the 
knowledge  of  him,")  shall  my  righteous  servant  jus- 
tify many,  for  he  shall  hear  their  iniquities;  therefore 
will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he 
shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong,  because  he  hath 
poured  out  his  soul  unto  death,  and  he  was  number- 


46 


ed  among  the  transgressors  ;  and  he  bare  the  sin  of 
many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors." 
Isaiah  c.  liii. 

We  have  quoted  the  whole  of  this  very  remarkable 
prophecy,  because  it  is  so  directly  in  point,  that,  was 
there  not  another  text  in  the  Bible  to  prove  that  the 
predetermined  object  of  the  Saviour's  coming  was  to 
offer  an  atonement  for  sin,  this  of  itself  is  amply  suf- 
ficient to  establish  the  fact,  and  is  a  most  triumphant 
refutation  of  all  the  cavils  that  have  ever  been  arrayed 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  propitiation  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

It  asserts  in  the  most  positive  manner  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  were  not  on  his  own  account,  for  he 
hath  done  no  violence,  neither  was  any  deceit  in  his 
mouth  :  that  they  were  for  the  sins  of  others ;  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised  for  our 
iniquities,  for  the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he 
stricken :  that  on  his  part  they  were  perfectly  volun- 
tary; he  poured  out  his  soul  [life]  unto  death;  he 
bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the 
transgressors :  that  they  were  well  pleasing  to  the 
Father,  and  consistent  with  his  will,  for  the  Lord  hath 
laid  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  It  pleased  the 
Lord  to  bruise  him  and  to  put  him  to  grief ;  therefore 
will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he 
shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong,  because  he  hath 
poured  out  his  soul  [life]  unto  death. 

With  these  assertions,  the  testimony  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  fully  accords,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  fol- 
lowing texts :  "  Even  as  the  Son  of  Man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many"  Matt.  c.  xx.  v.  28.  "  Tlxink- 
est  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father,  and 


47 


he  shall  presently  give  me  more  than  twelve  legions 
of  angels  ?  But  how  then  shall  the  Scriptures  be  ful- 
filled that  thus  it  must  be."  c.  26.  "  But  all  this  was 
done,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets  might  be  ful- 
filled." Matt.  c.  xxi.,  v.  4. 

As  expressions  similar  to  these  occur  frequently  in 
the  narratives  of  the  evangelists,  we  may  remark,  that 
they  positively  assert  certain  things  to  be  done,  in  or- 
der that  the  purposes  of  the  Almighty,  as  predicted 
by  his  inspired  prophets,  might  be  duly  accomplish- 
ed ;  and  the  things  asserted  thus  to  be  done,  relate 
not  only  to  the  birth  and  life,  but  to  the  minute  par- 
ticulars of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Lord 
Jesus. 

To  return  to  our  quotations — "  Oh  fools  and  slow 
of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken — 
ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to 
enter  into  his  glory,"  Luke,  c.  xxiv.  v.  25,  26. 
"  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you  while 
I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled 
which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning  me."  v.  44. 
"  And  he  said  unto  them,  thus  it  is  written,  and  thus 
it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer  and  to  rise  from  the  dead 
the  third  day,  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name,  among  all  na- 
tions, beginning  at  Jerusalem."  v.  46.  "  And  as  Mo- 
ses lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so 
must  the  son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life. 
John,  c.  iii.  v.  14.  /  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep ; 
therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me  because  I  lay  down 
my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it 
from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself— I  have  power 


48 


to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again,  this 
commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father."  c.  x.  v. 
15,  17,  18.  Jesus  saith  to  Pilate,  "thou  couldst 
have  no  power  at  all  against  me,  except  it  were  given 
thee  from  above"  c.  xix.  v.  11.  "  Ye  men  of  Israel 
hear  these  w  ords,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved 
of  God  among  you,  by  miracles  and  wonders  and 
signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as 
ye  yourselves  also  know — HIM  being  delivered  by 
the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God, 
ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified 
and  slain.  Acts,  c.  ii.  v.  22,  23.  But  those  things 
which  God  before  had  shewed,  by  the  mouth  of  all  his 
prophets  that  Christ  should  suffer,  HE  hath  so  fulfil- 
led" c.  iii.  v.  18.  "  For  of  a  truth  against  thy  Holy 
Child  Jesus,  whom  thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod 
and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  were  gathered  together,  for  to  do  what- 
soever thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before  to 
be  done"  c.  iv.  v.  27. 

We  have  quoted  but  a  small  part  of  the  abundant 
testimony  which  might  be  adduced  from  the  sacred 
volume,  relative  to  this  interesting  subject ;  and  we 
would  ask  any  of  our  readers,  whether  they  can  re- 
concile this  language  of  Scripture  with  the  assertion 
of  Elias  Hicks,  where  he  argues,  that  God  did  by 
no  means  send  his  son  into  the  world  purposely  to 
suffer  death,  but  only  to  live  a  righteous  and  godly 
life,  and  thereby  be  a  perfect  example.  If  we  believe 
the  truth  of  the  Bible,  must  we  not  be  directly  at  is- 
sue with  his  sentiments  on  these  points  ? 

The  coming,  and  sufferings,  and  death,  of  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  flesh,  were  events,  over  which  mere 
human  power  could  have  no  control — He  took  upon 


49 


himself  flesh,  and  in  due  time,  laid  down  his  own  life. 
expressly  declaring  "  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  I  lay 
it  down  of  myself"  The  Scriptures  say,  he  was  de- 
livered up  to  the  Jews  by  the  determinate  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God,  and  that  whatsoever  they  did 
against  him,  the  Divine  hand  and  counsel,  before  de- 
termined to  be  done.  Now  E.  H.  says,  that  it  was 
not  the  purpose  and  will  of  God,  that  he  should  be 
put  to  death  by  the  Jews,  but  merely,  that  he  should 
set  us  a  good  example,  by  living  a  righteous  and  god- 
ly life — Which  account  are  we  to  believe  ? 

But,  says  E.  H.  "if  it  was  the  purpose  and  will  of 
•  God,  that  he  should  die  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
then  the  Jews  by  crucifying  of  him,  would  have  done 
God's  will,  and  of  course,  would  all  have  stood  justi- 
fied in  his  sight,  which  could  not  be." 

We  say  this  mode  of  reasoning  is  inadmissible,  and 
if  E.  H.  carries  it  throughout,  he  must,  in  numerous 
instances,  impute  the  greatest  injustice  and  cruelty  to 
his  "  benevolent  creator."  We  shall  only  notice  the 
ease  of  Pharaoh,  as  one  of  many. 

The  Lord  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  unto  him  saying, 
"  Go  in,  speak  unto  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt,  that  he 
let  the  children  of  Israel  go  out  of  his  land." — But 
saith  he  also,  "And  I  will  harden  Pharaoh's  heart, 
and  multiply  my  signs  and  my  wonders  in  the  land 
of  Egypt ;  but  Pharaoh  shall  not  hearken  unto  you, 
that  I  may  lay  my  hand  upon  Egypt,  and  bring  forth 
mine  armies,  and  my  people,  the  children  of  Israel, 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  by  great  judgments."  He 
not  only  hardened  his  heart,  that  he  should  not  let 
the  people  go,  but  he  further  says,  "  And  indeed  for 
this  very  cause,  have  I  raised  thee  up,  for  to  shew  in 

G 


50 


thee  my  power,  that  my  name  may  be  declared 
throughout  all  the  earth." 

Now  to  apply  the  reasoning  of  E.  H.  to  this  case. 
We  will  form  an  argument  in  his  own  way  ;  viz  :  If  it 
was  the  purpose  and  will  of  God  to  harden  Pharaoh's 
heart,  that  he  should  not  let  the  people  of  Israel  go, 
then  Pharaoh,  by  refusing  to  hearken  unto  the  voice 
of  Moses,  and  keeping  them  in  bondage,  would  have 
done  God's  will,  and  of  course  would  have  stood  jus- 
tified in  his  sight ;  and  hence  all  the  punishments  in- 
flicted by  the  Almighty  upon  Pharaoh,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  refusal  to  let  the  children  of  Israel  go, 
were  cruel  and  unjust. 

The  argument  in  this  case,  is  exactly  parallel  to 
that  instituted  by  E.  H.  to  prove  that  it  was  not  the 
purpose  and  will  of  God,  that  Christ  should  suffer 
death  for  mankind ;  and  if  we  admit  his  reasoning  to 
be  sound,  we  must  convict  the  Almighty  of  injustice 
and  wanton  cruelty,  in  punishing  Pharaoh,  or  else 
deny  the  Scripture  account  altogether. 

The  ways  of  God  are  above  our  ways,  and  beyond 
the  ken  of  our  puny  powers,  and  it  becomes  us  rather 
to  believe  and  adore,  than  to  be  pronouncing  dogma- 
tically what  must,  or  must  not,  result  from  the  ful- 
filment of  his  eternal  purposes.  The  Omnipotent 
Ruler  of  the  universe,  "  declareth  the  end  from  the 
beginning,"  and  "  ordereth  all  things  after  the  coun  - 
sel of  his  own  will." 

There  is  no  position  more  universally  admitted, 
than  that  He  is  the  great  First  Cause,  "  by  whom  all 
things  consist ;"  and  yet  those  who  believe  this,  are 
far  from  supposing  that  He  is  the  author  of  moral 
evil,  though  they  well  know  that  it  abounds  in  the 
world.   How  far  he  ordains,  and  how  far  he  permits. 


51 


in  the  great  plan  of  the  moral  government  of  man, 
is  not  for  us  to  decide,  any  further  than  it  is  revealed 
to  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures :  and  although  these  de- 
clare that  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  that  he 
should  not  obey  the  command,  yet,  it  would  be  im- 
pious to  conclude,  that  God  is  thereby  implicated  in 
the  sin. 

The  Jews,  too,  were  completely  free  agents  in  the 
business.  They  were  wicked  and  hardy  enough,  vo- 
luntarily to  become  the  actors  in  putting  to  death  the 
Lamb  of  God — not  because  they  were  disposed  to 
fulfil  the  "determinate  counsel  of  God;"  but  for 
the  very  contrary  reason,  because  they  were  "  of 
their  father  the  devil,  who  was  a  murderer  from  the 
beginning."  And  shall  finite  man  presume  to  say, 
that  because  the  Divine  Being  overruled  their  actions} 
and  brought  good  out  of  evil,  that  he  was  an  accom- 
plice in  their  guilt,  or  that  their  wickedness  was  di- 
minished ? — No,  their  intentions  were  as  diabolical 
as  those  of  any  murderer  could  be,  and  for  these  they 
stood  deeply  and  justly  convicted  in  the  sight  of 
Heaven,  and  for  these  they  were  punished. 

The  reasoning  of  E.  H.,  which  we  last  quoted,  is 
therefore  wholly  inadmissible,  and  contradicts  the 
testimony  of  the  Scriptures. 

He  tells  us  in  the  preceding  sentence,  what  Christ 
came  into  the  world  for,  viz :  "  To  live  a  righteous 
and  godly  life,  (which  was  the  design  and  end  of 
God's  creating  man  in  the  beginning)  and  thereby  be 
a  perfect  example  to  such  of  mankind  as  should  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  him  and  of  his  perfect  life." 

The  assertions  in  this  sentence  amount  to  this: 
1st.  That  Christ  came  only  to  live  a  righteous  and 
godly  life,  and  to  be  a  perfect  example :  2d.  That 


52 


the  benefits  of  his  coming  were  limited  to  such  as 
should  come  to  the  knowledge  of  his  perfect  example ; 
3d.  That  the  design  of  the  Almighty  in  creating  man 
in  the  beginning,  was  to  live  a  righteous  and  godly 
life,  and  thereby  to  be  a  perfect  example — Ergo,  the 
design  and  end  of  God's  sending  Jesus  Christ  into 
the  world  was  the  same,  precisely,  as  his  design  and 
end  in  creating  Adam.  Therefore,  according  to  the 
assertions  of  E.  H.,  the  design  and  end  of  God's 
sending  his  Son  in  the  flesh,  was  for  no  higher,  or 
more  important  purpose,  than  the  birth  of  the  very 
meanest  of  the  human  species ;  for  it  must  be  evi- 
dent, that  it  is  the  design  and  end  of  God,  in  sending 
all  of  us  into  this  world,  that  we  should  live  a  right- 
eous and  godly  life,  and  thereby  be  good  examples, 
and  glorify  our  Creator. 

Hence  all  those  mighty  preparations,  which  for 
hundreds  of  years  had  been  making,  to  open  the  way 
for  the  advent  of  the  Messiah ;  which  began  imme- 
diately after  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  were  continued 
through  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations ; 
and  all  those  sublime  predictions  which  are  contained 
in  the  books  of  the  prophets,  setting  forth  the  glory 
and  majesty  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  terminated 
nran  event,  no  more  important  or  beneficial  to  man- 
kind, than  the  birth  of  any  mortal,  peccable  being. 
Is  this  consistent  with  the  Scriptures  ? 

Do  not  these  assertions  of  Elias  Hicks  strip  our 
blessed  Lord  of  his  eternal  Divinity  and  Godhead 
and  level  him  with  mere  man  ? — And  does  not  his 
scheme  cut  us  off  from  all  hope  in  the  atonement, 
take  away  the  great  and  glorious  objects  for  which 
Christ  came  and  suffered  in  the  flesh,  and  sweep 


53 

from  the  sacred  page  the  most  precious  and  consoling 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  ? 

We  are  confirmed  in  these  views  by  the  manner  in 
which  he  speaks  of  his  death,  which  he  says,  "  was 
permitted  to  be,  as  it  had  been  with  many  of  the  pro- 
phets, and  wise  and  good  men  that  were  before  him, 
who  suffered  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men  for 
righteousness  sake,  as  ensamples  to  those  that  came 
after,  that  they  should  account  nothing  too  dear  to 
give  up  for  the  truth's  sake,  not  even  their  own  lives*" 

Here,  he  associates  the  Son  of  God  with  "pro- 
phets, and  wise  and  good  men  that  were  before  him,77 
as  being  his  equals. — He  makes  his  death  exactly  si- 
milar to  theirs,  which  is  to  say,  that  Christ  was  a 
mere  martyr.    Is  this  the  language  of  the  Bible  ? 

Elias  Hicks  does  not  use  one  solitary  sentence, 
throughout  the  whole  letter,  which  would  characte- 
rize our  blessed  Lord  as  the  propitiation,  the  Saviour, 
the  Mediator  or  Intercessor  for  a  guilty  world,  al- 
though he  writes  the  letter  for  the  very  purpose  of 
giving  his  "  views  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  what  was  the  object  of  the  shedding  of  his 
blood  on  the  cross,  and  what  benefits  resulted  to  man- 
kind by  the  shedding  of  his  blood ! !" 

But  although  he  has  just  assured  us  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  sent  into  the  world  for  the  same  purpose 
for  which  Adam  was  created,  and  that  his  death  was 
a  parallel  with  that  of  "  the  prophets,  and  wise  and 
good  men  that  were  before  him,"  yet  in  the  next  sen- 
tence he  says  "  But  the  shedding  of  his  blood  by  the 
wicked  scribes  and  pharisees  and  people  of  Israel,  had 
a  particular  effect  on  the  Jewish  nation,  as  by  this, 
the  topstone  and  worst  of  all  their  crimes,  was  rilled 
up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities,  and  which  put  an 


64 

end  to  that  dispensation,  together  with  its  law  and 
covenant." 

Now  we  would  ask,  why  did  it  happen  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ  produced  this  particular  effect 
upon  the  Jewish  nation,  rather  than  the  death  of 
either  of  those  "  prophets,  and  wise  and  good  men 
that  were  before  him;"  who,  according  to  the  rea- 
soning of  E.  H.  were  created  for  the  same  purpose, 
and  died  for  the  same  causes,  as  did  the  Son  of  God  ? 
— As  E.  H.  says  that  God  did  not  send  him  into  the 
world  purposely  to  suffer  death,  it  must  have  been  a 
mere  chance  that  his  death  put  an  end  to  the  law, — 
and  as  Isaiah,  John  the  Baptist,  James,  Peter,  and 
Paul,  were  all  "  w  ise  and  good  men,"  and  died  "  by 
the  hands  of  wicked  men  for  righteousness  sake,"  we 
should  like  to  know  why  E.  H.  will  make  the  death 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  produce  this  important  effect,  in 
preference  to  one  of  these  ? 

He  proceeds — "  that  as  John's  baptism  summed 
up  in  one  all  the  previous  water  baptisms  of  that  dis- 
pensation and  put  an  end  to  them,  which  he  sealed 
with  his  blood,  so  the  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  summed  up  in  one  all  the  outward  atoning  sa- 
crifices of  the  shadowy  dispensation,  and  put  an  end 
to  them  all,  thereby  abolishing  the  law,"  &lc.  "  so 
that  all  the  Israelites  that  believed  on  him,  after  he 
exclaimed  on  the  cross,  It  is  finished,  might  abstain 
from  all  the  rituals  of  their  law,  such  as  circumcision, 
water  baptisms,  outward  sacrifices,  seventh  day  sab- 
baths,' and  all  their  other  holy  days,  and  be  blame- 
less," &x. 

These  surely  are  astonishing  events  to  result  from 
the  death  of  one  who  came  only  to  do  what  every  man 
is  required  to  do.  and  who  merely  died  a  martyr ! 


55 


It  appears,  however,  that  Elias  Hicks  does  believe 
that  this  44  topstone  and  worst  of  all  the  crimes,  com  - 
mitted by  the  scribes  and  pharisees  and  people  of  Is- 
rael, by  which  the  measure  of  their  iniquity  was  fill- 
ed up  that  this  diabolical  and  wicked  act,  was  the 
means  of  abolishing  the  Jewish  law  and  dispensation. 
— Now  if  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  this  law  should 
be  abolished,  and  44  the  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ"  was  the  means  of  its  abolishment,  as  E.  H. 
asserts ;  then  from  his  own  reasoning,  the  Jews  did 
the  will  of  God,  in  crucifying  Christ,  fully  as  much, 
as  on  the  supposition  that  he  came  to  suffer  death  for 
the  sins  of  mankind. 

Let  us  state  the  argument  in  his  own  language — 
For  if  it  was  the  purpose  and  will  of  God,  that  the 
sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  should  sum  up 
in  one  all  the  outward  atoning  sacrifices  of  the  sha- 
dow y  dispensation,  and  put  an  end  to  them  all,  there- 
by abolishing  the  law  ;  which  put  an  end  to  that  dis- 
pensation, together  with  its  law  and  covenant ;  then 
the  Jews  by  crucifying  Jesus  Christ  would  have  done 
God's  will,  and  of  course  would  all  have  stood  justi- 
fied in  his  sight. 

But  E.  H.  says  all  this  was  done  by  the  sacrifice  of 
the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore,  according  to 
his  reasoning,  the  Jews  did  the  will  of  God  in  com- 
mitting this  topstone  and  worst  of  all  their  crimes. 
Vs  e  have  here  another  specimen  of  his  inconsistency; 
indeed  the  letter  presents  us  with  a  tissue  of  them,  on 
almost  every  page. 

If,  to  extricate  himself  from  this  difficulty,  he  says 
that  it  was  not  the  purpose  and  will  of  God  thus  to 
abolish  the  law,  he  should,  to  be  consistent,  observe 
all  its  rituals  and  ceremonies.    And  he  has  virtually 


56 


asserted  this,  for  as  he  declares  that  Christ  did  not 
come  44  purposely  to  suffer  death,"  and  that  his  death 
was  the  topstone  and  worst  of  all  the  crimes  commit- 
ted by  the  Jewish  nation,  and  consequently  very  con- 
trary to  the  purpose  and  will  of  God  in  sending  him 
into  the  world,  it  follows  from  his  mode  of  reasoning, 
that  if  this  murderous  deed  abolished  the  law,  it  must 
have  been  done  away  contrary  to  the  purpose  and  will 
of  God — Ergo,  the  Law  of  Moses  ought  still  to  be  in 
force. 

Let  any  serious  person  read  the  account  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  law  to  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the  so- 
lemn injunctions  which  were  laid  upon  them  to  ob- 
serve all  its  rituals ;  and  then  say  whether  he  thinks 
it  probable  that  an  event  which  was  to  annul  that  law 
and  do  it  completely  away,  never  came  within  the 
design  and  purposes  and  will  of  the  Divine  Law- 
giver ? 

Is  it  probable  that  a  law,  ratified  and  sealed  by  so 
many  awful  and  impressive  sanctions,  could  be  abro- 
gated by  the  mere  accidental  death  of  a  martyr  ?  We 
say  accidental,  because  E.  H.  asserts  that  his  death 
was  no  part  of  the  divine  purpose  and  will. 

Our  readers  will  perceive  from  the  Scriptures  that 
this  law  partook  of  the  nature  of  a  covenant  made  be- 
tween two  parties ;  and  of  course  it  could  not  be  dis- 
solved by  the  consent  of  one  party  only,  and  that 
by  far  the  inferior. — Consequently  if  it  be  repealed,  it 
must  have  been  done  with  the  consent  and  will  of 
Him  who  gave  it.  Hence  as  it  was  repealed  in  the 
will  and  wisdom  of  God,  and  as  E.  H.  asserts  that 
the  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  repealed  it, 
he  makes  the  Jews  to  have  done  the  will  of  Heaven 
in  putting  him  to  death. 


57 


He  proceeds  to  tell  us,  that  "  he  does  not  consider 
that  the  crucifixion  of  the  outward  body  of  flesh  and 
blood  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  was  an  atonement  for  any 
sins,  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews ;  for  as  their  law 
was  outward,  so  their  legal  sins  and  their  penalties 
were  outward,  and  these  could  be  atoned  for  by  an 
outward  sacrifice." 

We  have  always  understood  the  word  sin  to  mean 
moral  evil — the  violation  of  the  law  and  commands 
of  God  ;  and  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  know  what 
"  outward  or  legal  sin"  can  mean.  If  God  command 
his  creature  man  to  do  any  thing,  however  unimpor- 
tant the  thing  itself  may  appear  to  him  to  be,  the  dis- 
obedience of  that  command  is  positive  sin — it  is  moral 
evil.  The  thing  itself  abstractly  considered,  may  be 
neither  good  nor  evil ;  the  crime  is  in  transgressing 
the  law  of  God,  and  this  must  always  be  absolute  sin. 
If  therefore,  E.  H.  alludes  to  the  neglect  of  the  Jew- 
ish ritual,  when  he  speaks  of  "  legal  or  outward  sin,5' 
the  case  is  not  altered.  The  Jews  w7ere  as  positive- 
ly commanded  to  observe  all  those  rituals,  as  they 
were  to  fulfil  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue ;  and  the 
neglect  to  do  so,  was  an  act  of  rebellion  and  disobe- 
dience to  a  positive  command  of  God,  and  therefore 
was  positive  sin  or  moral  evil. 

Now  E.  H.  distinctly  admits  in  the  sentence  which 
we  last  quoted  from  his  letter,  that  the  crucifixion  of 
the  outward  body  of  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  on  the 
cross,  was  an  atonement  for  these  legal  sins  of  the 
Jews — that  is,  that  the  Jews  were  released  from  the 
curse  or  penalty,  which  they  had  incurred  by  trans- 
gressing their  law,  through  the  atoning  sacrifice,  or 
sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  calls 
"  an  innocent  and  righteous  one." 


58 


In  admitting,  therefore,  that  the  legal  sins  of  the 
Jews  could  be,  and  were  atoned  for,  by  an  outward 
sacrifice,  and  that  this  sacrifice  was  the  death  of  Je- 
sus Christ  on  the  cross,  E.  Hicks  has  fully  recogniz- 
ed and  granted  the  principle  of  vicarious  and  propi- 
tiatory suffering  and  death  of  "  an  innocent  and  right- 
eous one"  on  behalf,  and  in  lieu  of  the  guilty ;  and 
yet  in  the  same  letter,  speaking  of  the  Christian's  be- 
lief in  this  doctrine,  he  declares  it  to  be  "  wicked 
and  absurd" — u  an  outrage  against  every  righteous 
law  of  God  and  man,"  and  asks  whether  any  rational 
creature  that  has  any  right  sense  of  justice  and  mercy, 
w7ould  be  willing  to  accept  forgiveness  of  his  sins  upon 
such  terms  ? 

Is  this  consistency  ?  To  admit  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment on  one  page,  and  anathematise  it,  and  the  be- 
lievers in  it,  on  the  next  ?  The  distinction  of  "  legal 
or  outward  sin,"  makes  nothing  in  his  favour,  for 
the  principle  of  atonement  is  the  same,  even  if  we  ad- 
mit the  distinction  to  be  correct,  which  it  evidently 
is  not.  If  the  sins  of  the  Jews  could  be  atoned  for 
by  an  outward  sacrifice,  and  "  this  too  by  the  hands 
of  wicked  men,  slaying  an  innocent  and  righteous 
one,"  as  E.  H.  asserts,  upon  the  same  principle  the 
sins  of  Christians  may  be  atoned  for,  by  the  same 
sacrifice.  What  are  we  to  think  then  of  his  expres- 
sions in  relation  to  those  who  believe  in  the  apostle's 
doctrine  of  the  atonement,  when  he  says,  that  any 
person  acknowledging  a  willingness  to  be  saved 
through  such  a  medium,  would  shew  himself  to  be  a 
poor  selfish  creature,  unworthy  of  notice  ? 

He  admits  the  doctrine  in  behalf  of  the  Jews,  why 
then  be  so  severe  upon  those  who  claim  it  for  Chris- 
tians  f 


59 


He  proceeds  in  his  letter — "  And  this  last  outward 
sacrifice  was  a  full  type  of  the  inward  sacrifice,  that 
every  sinner  must  make,  in  giving  up  that  sinful  life 
of  his  own  will,  in  and  by  which,  he  hath  from  time 
to  time  crucified  the  innocent  life  of  God  in  his  own 
soul" — "  Now  all  this  life,  power,  and  will  of  man, 
must  be  slain  and  die  on  the  cross  spiritually,  as  Je- 
sus died  on  the  cross  outwardly,  and  this  is  the  true 
atonement,  which  that  outward  atonement  was  a  clear 
and  full  type  of." 

This  mystical  language  of  "  giving  up  that  sinful 
life,  and  its  being  slain  and  dying  on  the  cross,"  &;c. 
rat ans  simply  that  a  wicked  man  should  forsake  his 
wickedness  and  learn  to  do  well ;  and  the  sentiment 
is  fairly  inculcated,  that  a  man  may  thus  make 
atonement  for  his  own  sins:  that  he  may  go  on  for 
years  sinning  against  God,  then  turn  about  and  be- 
come religious,  and  claim  the  forgiveness  of  h  is  past 
sins  as  due  to  his  present  righteousness.  On  the  same 
principle,  past  righteousness  could  atone  for  present 
sin ;  all  which  any  one  may  see  is  entirely  contrary 
to  the  plainest  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 

The  natural  depravity  of  man,  his  utter  helpless- 
ness, and  his  inability  to  extricate  himself  from  the 
wretched  situation  into  which  sin  has  plunged  him  ; 
the  necessity  of  a  propitiation  and  a  mediator,  are 
fully  set  forth  in  the  sacred  volume. 

Our  blessed  Lord  told  his  disciples,  that  after  they 
had  done  all  that  was  commanded  them,  they  should 
say  "  we  are  unprofitable  servants,  we  have  done  no 
more  than  it  was  our  duty  to  do."  Now,  we  are 
commanded  to  keep  the  whole  law  of  God  all  our 
lives  long,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  obey  the  command. 
If  a  man  go  on  in  rebellion  against  this  law  for  a  se~ 


60 


lies  of  years,  and  is  ^then  through  the  goodness  of 
God,  awakened  to  a  sense  of  his  sinful  state,  and  be- 
gins to  amend  his  ways — or  as  Elias  Hicks  expresses 
it,  44  gives  up  that  sinful  life  of  his  own  will  to  die  on 
the  cross,"  can  this  amendment  of  life  be  any  atone- 
ment for  his  past  wickedness,  when,  if  he  had  faith- 
fully kept  the  whole  law  of  God  all  his  life  long,  he 
would  have  been  but  an  unprofitable  servant,  and 
have  done  no  more  than  it  was  his  duty  to  do  ? 

This  doctrine  of  self-atonement,  though  inculcated 
by  E.  H.,  is  no  where  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures, 
nor  supported  by  them. 

Speaking  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  he  says, 
$<  They  don't  appear  to  have  been  guilty  of  but  one 
failure,  and  that  it  appears  they  made  satisfaction 
for,  at  the  time  of  their  first  arraignment  by  their  be- 
nevolent Creator,  manifesting  sorrow  and  repent- 
ance." 

That  the  transgression  of  Adam  and  Eve,  merited 
a  more  forcible  appellation  than  "  a  failure  or  a  mis- 
step," is  very  obvious  from  the  punishment  which 
followed  it.  Now,  to  examine  the  assertions  of  E. 
H. :  first,  that  "  it  appears  they  made  satisfaction  for 
this  failure  at  the  time  of  their  first  arraignment." 

This  is  not  only  unsupported  by  Scripture,  but  in- 
consistent with  it.  If  they  made  satisfaction  for  the 
crime,  they  must  have  done  away  the  guilt  and  pe- 
nalty; and  it  would  have  been  highly  unjust  in  their 
benevolent  Creator  to  punish  them  for  "  a  failure," 
which  they  had  made  satisfaction  for.  But  the  Bible 
tells  us  that  he  did  punish  them,  [see  Genesis,]  con- 
sequently, they  could  not  have  made  satisfaction  for 
the  sin. 

Further,  he  says  "  they  manifested  sorrow  and  re- 


61 


pentance."  This  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  Bi- 
ble. It  tells  us  that  they  began  making  excuses, 
and  trying  to  shift  the  blame  upon  some  one  else. 
The  woman  says,  "  the  serpent  beguiled  me,  and  I 
did  eat ;"  and  Adam,  as  though  he  would  impute  a 
part  of  the  blame  to  his  Maker,  says,  "  the  woman 
whom  thou  gavest  me  to  be  with  me,  she  gave  me  of 
the  tree  and  I  did  eat." 

We  are  unable  to  find  any  tokens  of  sorrow  or  re- 
pentance in  any  part  of  the  Scripture  narrative.  Adam 
and  Eve  seem  to  have  no  idea  themselves  of  having 
made  satisfaction,  or  they  would  not  have  attempted 
to  hide  themselves  from  the  presence  of  their  benevo- 
lent Creator.  Adam  says,  "  I  heard  thy  voice  in  the 
garden,  and  / was  afraid"  Where  would  have  been 
the  occasion  for  this  slavish  fear,  if  they  had  made 
satisfaction  for  the  crime,  and  manifested  sorrow  and 
repentance  ? 

The  next  sentence  is  predicated  upon  no  better  au- 
thority, viz.  "  Which  (viz.  their  making  satisfaction, 
&c.)  seems  to  be  fairly  implied  by  the  sequel  of  the 
interview  between  them,  for  it  is  said  he  clothed 
them  with  coats  of  skin  to  hide  their  nakedness, 
which  is  an  emblem  of  durable  clothing,"  &c. 

Clothing  them  with  coats  of  skins,  was  certainly  no 
evidence  of  their  having  made  satisfaction  ;  because, 
while  in  a  state  of  innocence  and  purity,  before  they 
sinned,  they  were  naked  and  needed  no  clothing. 
The  necessity  for  clothing  was  the  effect  of  their  sin  ; 
and  the  wearing  of  it  must  have  been  a  constant  and 
painful  memento  of  their  fall  from  their  primeval  state 
of  happiness.  The  Hebrew  word  signifies  the  "skins 
of  beasts,"  and  we  should  rather  think  these  indica- 
tive of  the  ascendancy  which  the  animal  passions  had 


62 


obtained  over  them  by  their  fall,  than  emblems  of  the 
pure  and  holy  covering  of  the  Lord's  Spirit,  which  E. 
H.  would  make  them  to  signify. 

Again,  says  E.  H.,  "  their  nakedness  was  not  an 
outward  one,  but  a  nakedness  of  soul." 

The  Bible  says,  "  they  were  both  naked,  the  man 
and  his  wife,  and  they  were  not  ashamed"  This 
proves  beyond  a  doubt  that  their  nakedness  ivas  an 
outward  nakedness,  else  why  say  "  they  were  not 
ashamed  ?"  We  would  ask  E.  H.,  if  it  was  not 
an  outward  nakedness,  how  could  he  clothe  them 
with  coats  of  skin  ?  Could  "  a  nakedness  of  soul,"  be 
removed  by  covering  them  with  garments  made  from 
the  skins  of  beasts  ? 

He  proceeds  :  "  And  inasmuch  as  those  idle  pro- 
mulgators of  original  sin,  believe  they  are  made  sin- 
ners without  their  consent  or  knowledge,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  every  ra- 
tional mind  must  see  is  impossible,  so  likewise  they 
are  idle  and  ignorant  enough  to  believe  they  are  made 
righteous  without  their  consent  or  knowledge,  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  who  lived  on  the  earth  near  two 
thousand  years  before  they  had  an  existence ;  and 
this  by  the  cruel  hands  of  wicked  men  slaying  an 
innocent  and  righteous  one." 

We  would  here  request  our  readers  particularly  to 
notice,  that  the  subject  treated  on  in  this  part  of  the 
letter,  (from  the  sentence  which  we  have  just  quoted, 
to  the  concluding  paragraph,)  is  undeniably,  the 
Christian's  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  propitiation 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  We  should 
recollect  too,  that  Elias  Hicks  has  before  granted  the 
principle  of  atonement,  by  admitting  that  the  cruci- 
fixion of  the  outward  body  of  flesh  and  blood  of  Je- 


63 


sus  on  the  cross,  was  an  atonement  for  the  legal  sins 
of  the  Jews ;  and  of  consequence,  he  makes  the 
Jews  righteous,  touching  those  points  of  the  law 
wherein  they  had  transgressed,  (or  their  legal  sins,) 
"  by  the  righteousness  of  one  who  lived  on  the  earth," 
nearly  fifteen  hundred  years  after  that  law  was  given  ; 
"  and  this  by  the  cruel  hands  of  wicked  men  slaying 
an  innocent  and  righteous  one;"  and  he  is  therefore 
as  much  chargeable  with  being  "  idle  and  ignorant" 
in  doing  so,  as  those  are  who  hold  up  the  propitiation 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  belief  of  Christians.  We  do 
not,  however,  consider  his  statement  to  be  correct,  as 
we  are  not  acquainted  with  any  Christians  who  be- 
lieve they  are  made  righteous  ivithout  their  consent  or 
knowledge,  through  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Son  of 
God. 

While  we  reverently  and  gratefully  acknowledge 
the  blessed  advantages  purchased  for  mankind  by  his 
precious  sufferings  and  death  on  the  cross,  we  are  far 
from  believing  that  this  alone,  constitutes  the  whole 
work  of  the  Christian's  salvation.  We  believe  most 
sincerely,  that  his  death  was  the  procuring  cause  of 
the  more  full  and  general  diffusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  constitutes  the  glory  of  these  gospel  days ; 
and  that  obedience  to  the  influences  of  this  Spirit, 
are  necessary  for  the  work  of  sanctification.  Yet  we 
can  no  more  separate  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  mediation  and  intercession  of  our  ado- 
rable Redeemer,  from  that  most  acceptable  sacrifice 
which  he  made  of  himself  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,  than  we  can  assert,  that  this  sacrifice  of  itself, 
justifies  the  sinner  while  he  continues  in  his  sins. 
The  outward  offering  and  the  inward  work  are  ne- 
cessarily and  inseparably  connected,  as  cause  and  ef- 


64 


feet,  and  are  both  essential  and  indispensable  to  man's 
salvation. 

We  have  already  cited  many  texts  of  Scripture, 
which  assert  that  our  blessed  Lord  and  his  apostles 
taught  the  very  doctrine  which  Elias  Hicks  stiles  us 
"  idle  and  ignorant"  for  believing ;  and  the  only  de- 
fence which  we  shall  make  on  the  occasion,  is  simply 
to  ask  the  question,  Who  is  most  likely  to  be  right, 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  Elias  Hicks  ? 

The  following  language  of  Paul,  "  who  was  not 
a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  of  the  apostles," 
comes  directly  to  the  point  mentioned  in  the  last  quo- 
tation from  the  letter  :  "  And,  therefore,  it  was  impu- 
ted to  him  for  righteousness.  Now,  it  was  not  writ- 
ten for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed  to  him, 
hxxtfor  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we  be- 
lieve on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead,  who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was 
raised  again  for  our  justification."  Rom.  c.  iv.,  v.  22, 
23,  24,  25.  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even 
so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life  ;  for  as  by  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by 
the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous" 
Rom.  c.  v.,  v.  18. 

Again,  E.  H.  says,  "  And  these,  (viz.  those  who 
believe  that  the  atonement  was  made  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,)  are  bold  and  daring  enough  to  lay 
this  cruel  and  unholy  act  in  the  charge  of  divine  jus- 
tice, as  having  purposely  ordained  it  to  be  so ;  but 
what  an  outrage  it  is  against  every  righteous  law  of 
God  and  man,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly  testi- 
fy," &c. 


65 


On  this  passage  we  have  only  to  remark,  that  we 
have  proved  before,  that  E.  H.  by  making  this  "  cruel 
and  unholy  act,"  the  means  of  abolishing  the  law  and 
atoning  for  the  sins  of  the  Jews,  has  "  laid  it  in  the 
charge  of  divine  justice,"  fully  as  much  as  tho-igh  he 
believed  with  the  apostle  John,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
"  the  propitiation,  not  for  our  (the  Jew's)  sins  only, 
but  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world" 

It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that,  from  his  abundant 
testimony  in  the  Scriptures,  he  could  not  have  pro- 
duced some  passages  more  relevant  and  forcible  than 
those  he  has  selected.  They  make  directly  against 
him :  for,  although  the  Jews  committed  this  "  cruel 
and  unholy  act,"  yet  he  grants  that  it  was  an  atone- 
ment for  their  legal  sins,  which  seems  much  like 
giving  them  a  reward  for  slaying  the  innocent. 

"  And  much,"  he  says,  "  might  be  produced  to 
show  the  wickedness  and  absurdity  of  the  doctrine, 
that  would  accuse  the  perfectly  just,  all  wise,  and 
merciful  Jehovah,  of  so  barbarous  and  cruel  an  act, 
as  that,  of  slaying  his  innocent  and  righteous  Son,  to 
atone  for  the  sins  and  iniquities  of  the  ungodly." 

"  The  doctrine,"  to  which  E.  H.  attaches  this 
wickedness  and  absurdity,  is  evidently  that  of  the 
atonement  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  are  not  aware,  how- 
ever, that  "  the  doctrine,"  or  any  of  its  believers, 
bring  this  gross  accusation  against  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing. His  letter  makes  this  "  barbarous  act,"  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  abolishing  the  law,  and  of  atoning 
for  the  sins  of  the  Jews,  who  committed  it ;  and 
hence  he  would  seem,  from  his  own  reasoning,  quite 
as  fully  to  make  the  accusation,  as  those  to  whom 
he  wishes  to  impute  it. 

We  really  regret  that  he  cannot  refer  to  the  doc- 

i 


66 


trine  in  question,  without  branding  it  with  epithets, 
which  must  be  painful  to  all  pious  Christians. 
Throughout  the  whole  letter,  the  subject  is  not  once 
alluded  to,  without  an  attempt,  lamentably  obvious, 
to  present  it  in  a  forbidding,  or  even  disgusting  form. 
\  calm  and  temperate  assertion  of  his  own  belief, 
might  be  well ;  but  with  this  he  does  not  seem  to  be 
contented.  Christian  charity  would,  we  should  sup- 
pose, induce  him  to  respect  the  feelings  of  those  who 
sincerely  believe,  with  the  Scriptures,  that  it  is  the 
only  medium  of  reconciliation  which  God  hath  ap- 
pointed. 

"  Surely,"  he  says,  "  is  it  possible,  that  any  ra- 
tional being  that  has  any  right  sense  of  justice  or 
mercy,  that  would  be  willing  to  ACCEPT  forgive- 
ness of  his  sins  on  such  terms." 

The  words  "  such  terms,"  evidently  mean  the  vi- 
carious sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ — Once  more  then 
to  the  Bible.  Does  it  not  tell  us  in  the  plainest 
language  that  can  possibly  be  used,  that  this  propitia- 
tion is  the  medium  of  redemption — that  these  are  the 
terms  upon  which  forgiveness  of  sin  is  offered? 

Paul  says  to  the  Romans,  "  Whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood, 
to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  de- 
clare, I  say,  at  this  time  his  righteousness,  that  he 
might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth 
in  Jesus.7'  To  the  Corinthians,  "  For  he  hath  made 
him  to  be  sin  (or  as  in  the  Greek,  a  sin  offering)  for 
us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him."  To  the  Galatians, 
"  Who  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  that  he  might  deliver 
us  from  this  present  evil  world,  according  to  the  will  of 


67 


God  and  our  Father."  To  the  Ephesians,  "  Be  ye  kind 
to  one  another,  tender  hearted,  forgiving  one  ano- 
ther, even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven 
you." — "  To  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace, 
wherein  he  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved,  in 
whom  ice  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his 
grace."  To  the  Colossians,  "  And  you  that  were 
sometime  alienated,  and  enemies  in  your  minds,  by 
wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled  in  the  body 
of  his  flesh  through  death ;  to  present  you  holy  and 
unblameable,  and  unreproveable  in  his  sight."  To 
Timothy,  "  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator 
between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave 
himself  a  Ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 

To  Titus,  "  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the 
glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Je- 
sus Christ,  who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  re- 
deem us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a 
peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works."  Hebrews, 
"  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified,  through  the  of- 
fering of  the  Body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all" — 
"  for  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever  them 
that  are  sanctified."  Peter,  "  Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  re- 
ceived by  tradition  from  your  fathers,  but  by  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ  as  of  a  Lamb  without  blemish 
and  without  spot.'"  "  Who,  his  ownself  bare  our  sins 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  that  we  being  dead  to 
sins,  should  live  unto  righteousness,  by  whose  stripes  ye 
were  healed."  "  For  Christ  also,  hath  once  suffered  for 
sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us 


68 


to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quicken- 
ed by  the  Spirit." 

Now  after  reading  these,  and  many  other  portions 
of  Scripture,  which  we  could  produce  if  necessary, 
can  any  one  doubt  that  God  does  offer  us  forgive- 
ness of  sins  upon  "such  terms"  (as  E.  H.  call  the  pro- 
pitiation of  our  Redeemer),  and  upon  none  other ; 
yet  he  queries,  whether  "  any  rational  being  that 
has  any  right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  would  be 
willing  to  accept  it" 

But  E.  H.  by  using  the  word  ACCEPT,  must  ne- 
cessarily suppose  that  "  such  terms"  might  be  offer- 
ed— for  how  could  a  man  accept  what  was  not  ten- 
dered to  him  ? — And  yet,  although  it  is  God  who  offers, 
man  the  sinner  may  refuse  to  accept  them.  And  why 
not  accept  them  ?  Because  he  says  "  such  terms  are 
wicked  and  absurd,  and  an  outrage  against  every 
righteous  law  of  God  and  man." 

Does  he  suppose  then,  that  the  Holy,  Wise,  and 
Just  God,  has  offered,  or  could  offer  to  us,  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  upon  such  terms,  that  if  man  has  any 
right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  he  would  not  accept 
them  ?  How  destitute  then  of  any  right  sense  of  jus- 
tice and  mercy,  does  the  reasoning  of  this  letter  make 
Him  to  be,  who,  as  the  Bible  declares,  does  offer  to 
our  acceptance  "such  terms." 

Elias  Hicks,  as  we  have  before  stated,  asserts  that 
upon  "  such  terms"  forgiveness  of  sins  was  offered 
to  the  Jews ;  that  is,  "  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men 
slaying  an  innocent  and  righteous  one."  Now  we 
should  like  to  know,  whether  he  considers  those  Jews 
who  accepted  44  such  terms,"  to  have  been  destitute 
44  of  any  right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy  ;"  to  have 
been  44  standing  in  direct  opposition  to  every  princi- 


69 


pie  of  justice  and  honesty,  of  mercy  and  love,  and  to 
have  been  poor,  selfish  creatures,  unworthy  of  notice." 
It  would  follow  from  his  reasoning  on  this  subject, 
that  those  Jews  who  utterly  rejected  the  atonement 
which  E.  H.  says,  expiated  then  sins,  and  persecu- 
ted Jesus  Christ  unto  death,  were  the  most  just  and 
honest  among  their  nation,  and  the  least  selfish  in 
their  views. 

Again  :  says  E.  H.  "  Would  he  not  rather  go  for- 
ward, and  offer  himself  wholly  up  to  suffer  all  the 
penalties  due  to  his  crimes,  rather  than  the  innocent 
should  surfer  ?" 

As  regards  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ,  they 
were  entirely  voluntary ',  as  the  Scriptures  abundant- 
ly shew7 ;  consequently  the  latter  clause  of  this  sen- 
tence loses  all  its  force.  He  freely  and  of  his  own 
will,  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  us — a  sacrifice  well 
pleasing  unto  God. 

What  now  is  the  penalty,  or  "  all  the  penalties, 
due  to  man's  crimes  ?"  Let  the  Bible  answer — "  Tri- 
bulation and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth 
evil" — "  Everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power" — "  To  be 
cast  into  hell" — "  Suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal 
fire" — "  Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is 
not  quenched" — "  To  be  cast  into  the  lake  that  burn- 
etii with  fire  and  brimstone" — "  The  smoke  of  whose 
torment  ascendeth  for  ever  and  ever." 

Is  it  not,  then,  a  plain  inference  from  the  language 
of  this  letter,  "  that  any  rational  being  that  has  any 
right  sense  of  justice  and  mercy,  would  rather  go 
forward,  and  offer  his  soul  up  to  suffer  all  these  pe- 
nalties," rather  than  accept  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
through  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 


70 


And  yet  the  Scriptures,  as  we  have  before  shown, 
fully  assert  that  these  are  the  terms  upon  which  that 
forgiveness  is  offered. 

"Nay,"  says  E.  H.  "was  he  so  hardy  as  to  ac- 
knowledge a  willingness  to  be  saved  through  such  a 
medium,  would  it  not  prove  that  he  stood  in  direct 
opposition,  to  every  principle  of  justice  and  honesty, 
of  mercy  and  love,  and  show  himself  to  be  a  poor 
selfish  creature,  and  unworthy  of  notice  ?" 

Here,  the  words  " such  a  medium"  refer  to  the 
atonement,  as  must  be  evident  from  the  context. 
What,  then,  saith  this  sentence  ?  Was  any  rational 
being  so  hardy  as  to  acknowledge  a  willingness  to  be 
saved  through  that  medium,  which  the  Scriptures  de- 
clare to  be  the  only  medium  of  salvation  that  God 
hath  appointed,  viz.  the  coming,  sufferings,  and  death 
of  the  Son  of  God,  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin ;  would  it 
not  prove  that  rational  being  to  be  standing  in  direct 
opposition  to  every  principle  of  justice  and  honesty, 
of  mercy  and  love,  and  show  him  to  be  a  poor  selfish 
creature,  and  unworthy  of  notice  ? 

NowT,  if  man  would  thus  debase  and  degrade  him- 
self by  accepting,  or  by  merely  acknowledging  a 
imllingness  to  be  saved  through  the  offered  medium ; 
what  must  HE  be  who  could  ordain  and  appoint 
that  medium  ?  We  tremble  when  we  reflect  upon  the 
inferences  which  result  from  the  reasoning  contained 
in  this  letter.  Does  it  not  make  the  Pure  and  Infi- 
nite Jehovah,  the  Judge  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  to 
be  standing  in  direct  opposition  to  every  principle  of 
justice  and  honesty,  of  mercy  and  love,  and  to  be  a 
poor  selfish  creature,  and  unworthy  of  notice  ! ! 

Let  the  reader  contrast  the  sentiments  avowed  in 


71 


this  letter,  with  the  views  and  the  feelings  of  a  truly 
awakened  and  penitent  sinner. 

Humbled  in  the  dust  under  an  agonizing  sense  of 
the  amazing  weight  of  his  sins,  and  the  just  punish- 
ment which  they  merit ;  conscious  of  his  utter  inabi- 
lity to  extricate  himself  from  this  dreadful  situation, 
into  which  his  iniquities  have  plunged  him  ;  the  re- 
penting sinner  casts  about  him  a  look  of  anxious  in- 
quiry, and  exclaims  in  the  anguish  of  remorse,  "  Oh 
wretched  man  that  1  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from 
the  body  of  this  death  ?" 

Conscious  of  his  utter  unworthiness  and  nothing- 
ness in  the  Divine  sight,  he  "  dare  not  so  much  as  lift 
his  eyes  to  heaven,"  but  "  smiting  upon  his  breast," 
cries  out  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner."  Fully 
aware  that  his  multiplied  crimes  have  brought  upon 
him  all  the  penalties  of  the  violated  law,  and  that  the 
just  sentence  of  everlasting  condemnation  is  upon 
him,  he  can  most  truly  and  sincerely  adopt  the  lan- 
guage, "  A  Saviour  or  I  die,  a  Redeemer  or  I  perish 
for  ever." 

Would  such  a  man,  think  ye,  talk  of  not  accepting 
the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  on  the  terms  of  the  propi- 
tiation of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Would  he  consider  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement,  as  wicked  and  absurd  ;  as  an 
outrage  against  every  righteous  law  of  God  and  man  ? 
Would  he  rather  go  forward  and  offer  himself  wholly 
up  to  suffer  all  the  pangs  and  woes  and  torments, 
which  he  feels  to  be  due  to  his  crimes,  rather  than  be 
saved  through  that  medium  which  the  Bible  declares, 
God  has  offered  him  ? 

Far,  very  far  from  this.  With  what  humble  and 
reverent  gratitude  and  joy  would  such  a  suppliant 
sinner  listen  to  the  gladdening  assurances  of  the  gos- 


72 


pel  of  Christ,  44  That  when  we  were  yet  without 
strength,  in  due  time,  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly" — 
that  God  commendeth  his  love  toward  us,  in  that 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us ;  "  that 
being  justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from 
wrath  through  him  "  for  if  when  we  were  enemies, 
wre  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
much  more  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his 
life." 

How  fully,  how  emphatically,  would  these  gra- 
cious declarations,  prove  "  glad  tidings  of  great  joy," 
to  such  a  sinner  as  we  have  described,  and  how  dif- 
ferent would  every  feeling  and  sentiment  of  his  soul 
be,  from  the  language  of  this  letter. 

The  author  of  this  letter  appears  to  deny  the  divi- 
nity and  Godhead  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  consider 
him  a  mere  man.  He  rejects  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  atonement  in  the  most  decided  and  positive 
language. — His  scheme  seems  to  cut  us  off  from  all 
hope  of  mercy  through  this  means,  and  to  make  man 
the  redeemer*  of  himself. 

Well  may  we  adopt  the  language  of  an  inspired 
writer  "Can  a  man  be  profitable  unto  God,  as  he 
that  is  wise  may  be  profitable  unto  himself?  Is  it 
any  pleasure  to  the  Almighty  that  thou  art  righteous, 
or  is  it  any  gain  to  him  that  thou  makest  thy  ways 
perfect?  What,  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive? 
Now  if  thou  didst  receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory  as 
if  thou  hadst  not  received  it  ?" 

Instead  of  claiming  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the 
blessedness  of  heaven  on  the  ground  of  personal  wor- 

*  The  word  Redeemer  is  here  used  in  its  strictest  sense.  Re- 
dimo,  its  Latin  root,  signifies  to  buy  back— to  rescue  by  paying  a 
price. 


73 


thiness,  it  would  be  acting  more  in  character,  for  a 
sinful  wretch  to  cry  out,  "  Behold  I  am  vile,  what 
shall  I  answer  thee  ?  I  will  lay  my  hand  upon  my 
mouth — Once  have  I  spoken,  but  I  will  not  answer, 
yea  twice,  but  I  will  proceed  no  further.  Enter  not 
into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  Oh!  Lord,  for  in 
thy  si^ht  shall  no  man  living  be  justified." 

The  author  of  the  document  which  we  have  been 
examining,  commences  his  observations  with  saying, 
that  "  all  truth  is  simple  when  we  free  ourselves  from 
the  improper  bias  of  tradition  and  education ;"  and 
concludes  them,  by  recommending  us  to  "  shake  off 
all  traditional  views  imbibed  from  external  evidences" 
a  term  which  he  frequently  uses  to  designate  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

It  appears  from  these  expressions,  as  well  as  from 
the  general  tenor  of  the  letter,  that  it  is  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  becoming  converts  to  Elias  Hicks'  doc- 
trine, that  we  should  divest  our  minds  of  all  regard 
to,  or  belief  in,  those  plain  and  positive  truths  which 
we  have  been  taught  to  revere  from  our  childhood  ; 
which  holv  men  of  all  ages  and  of  different  countries, 
since  the  Christian  era,  have  held  most  sacred — 
Truths,  which  the  Scriptures  assert  in  the  most  so- 
lemn and  impressive  manner,  and  in  support  of  which, 
thousands  of  pious  Christians  have  suffered  martyr- 
dom. And  truly  we  think,  that  before  any  person  of 
sane  mind,  could  adopt  the  sentiments  which  this  letr 
ter  contains,  he  must  shake  off,  not  only  "  all  tradi- 
tional views,"  but  also  a  due  reverence  for  sacred 
things,  as  well  as  all  common  sense  and  consistency, 
and  totally  discard  his  belief  in  the  sacred  volume. 


FINIS. 


Prill 

"heological  Seminary-Speei  LiDMry 

1 

1012  01008  7221 

